## Bava Kamma Daf 85b

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

לְרַבּוֹת שׁוֹגֵג כְּמֵזִיד וְאוֹנֶס כְּרָצוֹן! אִם כֵּן, נִכְתּוֹב קְרָא: ״פֶּצַע בְּפָצַע״; מַאי ״פֶּצַע תַּחַת פָּצַע״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This serves **to include** in the category of those liable to pay compensation one who causes injury **unwittingly just as** one who causes injury **intentionally** is liable, **and** one who causes injury **due to circumstances beyond his control just as** one who causes injury **willingly.** The Gemara answers: **If so,** and the verse teaches only this, **let the verse write** the more succinct phrase: **A wound [*petza*] for a wound [*befatza*]; what** is taught by the expanded phrase: **“A wound [*petza*] for a wound [*taḥat patza*]”? Conclude two** conclusions **from** the verse, that the one who caused the injury is liable to pay compensation regardless of how he caused the injury, and that he must pay compensation for pain in addition to compensation for damage.


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

רַב פָּפָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא אָמַר, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְרַפֹּא יְרַפֵּא״ – לִיתֵּן רְפוּאָה בִּמְקוֹם נֶזֶק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to compensation for medical costs in a case where one pays compensation for damage, **Rav Pappa said in the name of Rava** that the **verse states: “He shall cause him to be thoroughly healed [*verappo yerappe*]”** (Exodus 21:19), and the doubled term teaches that the one who caused the injury is liable **to give** monetary compensation for **medical costs in a case of** compensation for **damage.**


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

הַאי מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְרַפֹּא יְרַפֵּא״ – מִכָּאן שֶׁנִּיתְּנָה רְשׁוּת לָרוֹפֵא לְרַפּאוֹת! אִם כֵּן, נִכְתּוֹב קְרָא ״וְרוֹפֵא יְרַפֵּא״! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, לִיתֵּן רְפוּאָה בִּמְקוֹם נֶזֶק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **This** verse is **necessary for** teaching a different *halakha*, **that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:** When the verse states: **“*Verappo yerappe*,” from here** it is derived **that permission is granted to a doctor to heal.** The Gemara answers: **If so, let the verse write: *Verofeh yerappe*,** meaning: And a doctor shall heal. **Learn from** the phrase employed that the one who caused the injury is liable **to give** monetary compensation for **medical costs in a case of damage.**


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

וְאַכַּתִּי מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לִכְדַאֲמַרַן, לְמִיתְנֵי בֵּיהּ קְרָא בְּרִיפּוּי! אִם כֵּן, לֵימָא קְרָא אוֹ ״רַפֹּא רַפֹּא״ אוֹ ״יְרַפֵּא יְרַפֵּא״, מַאי ״וְרַפֹּא יְרַפֵּא״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לִיתֵּן רְפוּאָה בִּמְקוֹם נֶזֶק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But** it is **still necessary for** the *halakhot* **that we stated** previously, i.e., it was necessary **for the verse to repeat** the language **of healing,** as the Gemara explained. The Gemara answers: **If so, let the verse say** one of the two words twice, **either: *Rappo rappo*, or: *Yerappe yerappe*. What** is taught by repeating the language with a change: **“*Verappo yerappe*”? Learn from** this wording that the one who caused the injury is liable **to give** monetary compensation for **medical costs in a case of damage.**


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

מִכְלָל דְּמַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לְהוּ שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם נֶזֶק. שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם נֶזֶק הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לְהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* stated that compensation for pain, medical costs, loss of livelihood, and humiliation are paid even where the one who caused the injury pays compensation for damage. The Gemara notes: **By inference,** it must be **that you find these** examples of cases where the one who caused an injury must pay compensation for these indemnities **that are not in a case of damage.** The Gemara asks: **How** would **you find** examples of **these** cases **that are not in a case of damage?**


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

צַעַר – כִּדְקָתָנֵי: צַעַר – כְּווֹאוֹ בְּשַׁפּוּד אוֹ בְּמַסְמֵר, וַאֲפִילּוּ עַל צִפּוֹרְנוֹ מְקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה חַבּוּרָה. רִיפּוּי – דַּהֲוָה כָּאֵיב לֵיהּ מִידֵּי, וּסְלֵיק וְאַיְיתִי לֵיהּ סַמָּא חֲרִיפָא, וְאַחְוְורֵיהּ לְבִישְׂרֵיהּ; דִּצְרִיךְ לְאוֹתֹבֵי לֵיהּ סַמָּא לְאַנְקוֹטֵיהּ גַּוְונָא דְּבִישְׂרֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: An example of a case where one must pay compensation for **pain** alone is **as that** which the mishna **teaches** explicitly: How is payment for **pain** assessed? If **he burned** another **with a skewer or with a** hot **nail, or even** if he burned him **on his fingernail,** which is **a place where he does not cause a bruise,** i.e., there was no personal injury, only pain, the court evaluates the monetary value of the pain. An example of a case where one must pay compensation for **medical costs** alone is **where some** body part **was hurting and** another **came and brought him a strong drug, and it whitened his flesh;** the *halakha* is **that** the second person **must give him** another **drug to restore the color to his flesh,** even though he caused no damage, i.e., loss of function.


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

שֶׁבֶת – דְּהַדְּקֵיהּ בְּאִינְדְּרוֹנָא, וּבַטְּלֵיהּ. בּוֹשֶׁת – דְּרַק לֵיהּ בְּאַפֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
An example of a case where one must pay compensation for **loss of livelihood** alone is a case of one **who locked** another **in a room [*be’inderona*] and forced him to be idle,** but did not cause him any personal injury. An example of a case where one must pay compensation for **humiliation** alone is a case of one **who spit in the face of** another, without causing any personal injury.


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

שֶׁבֶת – רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ הוּא שׁוֹמֵר קִישּׁוּאִין. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שֶׁבֶת – רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ הוּא שׁוֹמֵר קִישּׁוּאִין. וְאִם תֹּאמַר: לָקְתָה מִדַּת הַדִּין; דְּכִי מִיתְּפַח הַאי גַּבְרָא, לָאו אַגְרָא דְּשׁוֹמֵר קִישּׁוּאִין הוּא שָׁקֵיל, אֶלָּא דָּלֵי דַּוְולָא וְשָׁקֵיל אַגְרָא; אִי נָמֵי אָזֵיל בִּשְׁלִיח[וּתָא] וְשָׁקֵיל אַגְרָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: How is payment for **loss of livelihood** assessed? The court **views** the injured party **as though he were a watchman of cucumbers. The Sages taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 9:2): How is payment for **loss of livelihood** assessed? The court **views** the injured party **as though he were a watchman of cucumbers. And if you say:** But **the standard of justice was compromised.** The Gemara interjects to clarify this statement of the *baraita*: It appears to be compromised, **as when this man will recover, he** will **not collect the wage of a watchman of cucumbers,** but **rather** he will **carry buckets and collect** a higher **wage, or** he will **travel as an agent and collect** an even higher **wage.** The assessment of loss of livelihood should also account for one of these types of labor.


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

מִדַּת הַדִּין לֹא לָקְתָה, שֶׁכְּבָר נָתַן לוֹ דְּמֵי יָדוֹ וּדְמֵי רַגְלוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to quoting the *baraita*: **The standard of justice was not compromised, because** the one who caused him injury **already gave him the value of his hand or the value of his leg,** and that compensation took into account the professional opportunities he lost due to the injury.


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

אָמַר רָבָא: קִטַּע אֶת יָדוֹ – נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי יָדוֹ, וְשֶׁבֶת – רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ הוּא שׁוֹמֵר קִישּׁוּאִין. שִׁיבֵּר אֶת רַגְלוֹ – נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי רַגְלוֹ, וְשֶׁבֶת – רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ הוּא שׁוֹמֵר אֶת הַפֶּתַח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says:** If one **severed the hand of** another, **he gives him the value of his hand** as compensation for damage, **and** for **loss of livelihood** the court **views** the injured party **as though he were a watchman of cucumbers.** If one **broke the leg of** another, **he gives him the value of his leg** as compensation for damage. **And** for **loss of livelihood** the court **views** the injured party **as though he were a watchman at the opening** to a courtyard, because he cannot work even as a watchman of cucumbers, as that requires walking around the cucumber field.


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

סִימֵּא אֶת עֵינוֹ – נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי עֵינוֹ, וְשֶׁבֶת – רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ הוּא מַטְחִינוֹ בְּרֵיחַיִם. חֵירְשׁוֹ – נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי כוּלּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava continues: If one **blinded the eye of** another, **he gives him the** value **of his eye** as compensation for damage; **and** as for **loss of livelihood,** the court **views** the injured party **as though** the one who caused the injury **caused him to grind with a mill,** as even a blind person can do this. If one **deafened** another, **he gives him his entire value** as compensation for damage, because one lacking the ability to hear is not fit for any form of employment.


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

בָּעֵי רָבָא: קִטַּע אֶת יָדוֹ וְלֹא אֲמָדוּהוּ, שִׁיבֵּר אֶת רַגְלוֹ וְלֹא אֲמָדוּהוּ, סִימֵּא אֶת עֵינוֹ וְלֹא אֲמָדוּהוּ – וּלְבַסּוֹף חֵירְשׁוֹ, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דְּלָא אֲמָדוּהוּ – בְּחַד אוּמְדָּנָא סַגִּי לֵיהּ, וְיָהֵיב לֵיהּ דְּמֵי כוּלֵּיהּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי? אוֹ דִלְמָא, חֲדָא חֲדָא אָמְדִינַן וְיָהֲבִינַן לֵיהּ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava raises a dilemma:** If one **severed the hand** of another, **and** the court **did not** yet **evaluate him** to determine the compensation, and then he **broke his leg, and** the court **did not** yet **evaluate him** for this additional injury, and then he **blinded his eye, and** the court **did not** yet **evaluate him** for this further injury; **and ultimately** he **deafened him, what is** the *halakha*? **Do we say: Since** the court **did not evaluate him** each time, **one evaluation is sufficient for** the court to determine his compensation, **and** the one who caused him injury must **give him his entire value at once,** as that is the compensation for deafening him? **Or perhaps** we say: **We evaluate** each injury **one by one, and we** obligate the one who caused him injury to **give him** compensation for each.


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

נָפְקָא מִינֵּיהּ דְּבָעֵי לְמִיתַּב לֵיהּ צַעַר וּבוֹשֶׁת דְּכֹל חֲדָא וַחֲדָא; נְהִי דְּנֶזֶק וְרִיפּוּי וְשֶׁבֶת דְּכֹל חֲדָא וַחֲדָא לָא יָהֲבִינַן לֵיהּ – דְּכֵיוָן דְּקָא יָהֵיב לֵיהּ דְּמֵי כוּלֵּיהּ, כְּמַאן דְּקַטְלֵיהּ דָּמֵי, וְהָא יְהַיב לֵיהּ דְּמֵי כוּלֵּיהּ; צַעַר וּבוֹשֶׁת מִיהַת דְּכֹל חֲדָא וַחֲדָא יָהֵיב, דְּהָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ צַעַר וּבוֹשֶׁת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava explains the dilemma: **The difference is** with regard to **whether** the one who caused the injury **must give him** monetary compensation for **pain and humiliation for each and every one** of the injuries. **Although he does not give him** monetary compensation **for damage, medical costs, and loss of livelihood for each and every one** of the injuries, **since,** ultimately, **he is giving him his entire value** after deafening him, **he is like someone who killed him, and therefore he gives him his entire value** and no more; **in any event,** must he **give** compensation for **pain and humiliation for each and every one** of the injuries, **as** the injured party **had pain and humiliation** each time?


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

וְאִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר: כֵּיוָן דְּלֹא אֲמָדוּהוּ, קָא יָהֵיב לֵיהּ דְּמֵי כּוּלֵּיהּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי; אֲמָדוּהוּ, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דַּאֲמָדוּהוּ – חֲדָא חֲדָא בָּעֵי לְמִיתַּב לֵיהּ; אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא שַׁלֵּים – יָהֵיב לֵיהּ דְּמֵי כוּלֵּיהּ? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava continues: **And if you say** as a resolution to this dilemma that **since** the fact is **that** the court **had not evaluated him** after each injury, the one who caused him injury **pays him his entire value all together,** then there is another dilemma: If the court **had evaluated him** after each injury but the one who caused the injury had not paid the compensation before he deafened him, **what is** the *halakha*? **Do we say: Since** it is so that the court **evaluated him,** the one who caused him injury **is required to give him** the compensation for **each and every one** of the injuries? **Or perhaps, since** the one who caused him injury **had not** yet **paid** those compensations before deafening him, **he** must **give him his entire value.** The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


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

בָּעֵי רַבָּה: שֶׁבֶת הַפּוֹחַתְתּוֹ בְּדָמִים, מַהוּ? הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִכָּהוּ עַל יָדוֹ וְצָמְתָה יָדוֹ, וְסוֹפָהּ לַחֲזוֹר; מַאי? כֵּיוָן דְּסוֹפָהּ לַחֲזוֹר – לָא יָהֵיב לֵיהּ וְלָא מִידֵּי; אוֹ דִלְמָא, הַשְׁתָּא מִיהַת אַפְחֲתֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba raises a dilemma:** If one injured another, causing him **loss of livelihood that diminishes his monetary** value, **what is** the *halakha*? The Gemara explains: **What are the circumstances** of this case? **For example,** in a case **where he struck him on his hand and his hand became weakened** so that he could not work, **but** his hand **will ultimately return** to its original health, **what** is the *halakha*? Should one say: **Since** his hand **will ultimately return** to its original health, **he does not need to give him any** compensation **whatsoever** for the damage? **Or perhaps, in any event, he has diminished** his value for **now.**


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

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַמַּכֶּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ וְלֹא עָשָׂה בָּהֶן חַבּוּרָה, וְהַחוֹבֵל בַּחֲבֵירוֹ בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** a resolution to this dilemma from a mishna (87a): **One who strikes his father or his mother and did not cause them** to have **a bruise,** and who therefore is not liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment, which is the penalty for one who causes his parent a bruise, **and one who injures another on Yom Kippur,** and therefore is liable for excision from the World-to-Come [*karet*] and not liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment,