Jewish audio on chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be in מסכת בבא קמא, דף פ״ה, but we will start in דף פ״ד עמוד ב׳, eleven lines from the bottom of the עמוד, by the two dots. The גמרא quotes from the משנה. It said in the משנה, צער, what is the example of having to pay if you cause someone pain? כואו בשפוד או במסמר וכולי, if you burned somebody with a hot spear or with a hot nail, and the משנה says even if you burned him on his nail that didn't cause a חבורה, it didn't cause an injury to the person, nevertheless, you have to pay for the pain. And how do you estimate the pain? You see how much would a person like him be ready to receive in order to let himself be caused this pain, and that's the amount that you have to pay. But the גמרא says, from the משנה we see that צער שלא במקום נזק משלם, that if you cause someone pain and there was no נזק involved, there was no injury that you should have to pay נזק for, nevertheless, you have to pay for the צער itself. But the גמרא says, מאן תנא, who is the תנא that holds like that? אמר רבא, said רבא, בן עזאי היא, this is בן עזאי. דתניא, because we learned in a ברייתא, רבי אומר, רבי says, כויה נאמרה תחלה, that כויה is mentioned first, בן עזאי אומר, בן עזאי says, חבורה נאמרה תחלה, that חבורה is mentioned first. And this refers to the פסוק in פרשת משפטים, קפיטל כ״א, פסוק כ״ה. There it says, כויה תחת כויה, you shall pay for a burn instead of a burn, פצע תחת פצע, a wound for a wound, חבורה תחת חבורה, an injury for an injury. So there's a מחלוקת, what this word כויה, that's mentioned in the תורה, what does that mean? Now כויה definitely refers to צער. When you cause someone a burn, you cause him צער. But the question is, when the תורה says that you have to pay for the צער, כויה תחת כויה, does that mean a kind of צער that came along with an injury that you must pay נזק for, or does כויה mean just a burn without a חבורה, so it's צער without an injury that you have to pay for, and that's what the תורה says, כויה תחת כויה, you must pay for that צער? Now, if

כויה means a חבורה too, then the question is, why did the תורה have to write later on חבורה תחת חבורה? So we must say that the תורה is trying to teach us that even if there was no חבורה, you still have to pay for the צער. Since כויה itself means with a חבורה, and nevertheless the תורה comes to say separately חבורה, to teach us that כויה really meant without a חבורה, and you're חייב to pay צער even if there was no injury. On the other hand, if כויה means without an injury, and then the תורה says חבורה תחת חבורה, so the תורה is coming to add that when do you pay for the כויה, for the צער, only if it came along with a חבורה. So this is the מחלוקת between רבי and בן עזאי. רבי says, כויה נאמרה תחלה, that לכתחלה when it says כויה, it only means a כויה without a חבורה. But בן עזאי אומר, בן עזאי says, חבורה נאמרה תחלה, that when it says כויה לכתחלה, it means לכתחלה, in the beginning, with a חבורה. The

פשט of כויה is with a חבורה. And the גמרא explains then, what a מחלוקת: במאי קמיפלגי, with what do they argue? רבי סבר, רבי holds, כויה דלית בה חבורה משמע. When it says כויה, it's משמע that there is no חבורה there. So then, when כתב רחמנא חבורה, when the תורה then writes חבורה, לגלוי על כויה, it comes to reveal the פשט in כויה, דאי איכא חבורה אין, if the כויה has a חבורה, then you pay for the כויה. In other words, if there is a חבורה there that you have to pay נזק for, so then you also pay for the כויה, for the צער. אי לא לא, but if there is no חבורה there, and you don't pay for any נזק, so then you don't pay for the צער either. But בן עזאי סבר, בן עזאי holds, כויה דאית בה חבורה משמע. לכתחלה when it says the word כויה, לכתחלה it's משמע a כויה with a חבורה. So then, when כתב רחמנא חבורה לגלוי על כויה, when the תורה writes by חבורה, it comes to reveal the פשט in the כויה, פונקט פארקערט, that דלית בה חבורה, that the כויה we mentioned before has no חבורה. Because if the כויה would have a חבורה, then why did the תורה have to write חבורה later? Since the תורה writes חבורה later, that itself comes to show that כויה is without a חבורה, and therefore you are חייב to pay for צער even if there was no חבורה. So it comes out that we have a מחלוקת here between רבי and בן עזאי, whether you pay for צער שלא במקום נזק. And according to רבי who says that כויה נאמרה תחלה, he learns that only if it is with a חבורה, that's when you pay for the כויה, for the צער. And בן עזאי says that since חבורה נאמרה תחלה, so what it says later חבורה, it's comes to reveal that כויה by itself, you are also חייב. You are חייב for צער שלא במקום נזק. And that's what the גמרא meant, that who is the תנא of our משנה to pay for צער שלא במקום נזק, that is בן עזאי. And then the

גמרא says: מתקיף לה רב פפא. Here רב פפא asked a קושיא: אדרבה, איפכא מסתברא. The contrary, the סברא should be just the opposite. Why should we say that each one when he says his opinion in what the word כויה meant, why should we learn that he was only saying the way we would have thought, and then the word חבורה comes to teach us differently? Why can't we say that he meant what the word כויה means לפי האמת after we see the word חבורה already? In other words, till now we learned that when רבי uses the term that כויה נאמרה תחילה, he means that לכתחילה the word כויה means without a חבורה, then the word חבורה comes to say different, comes to show us that the פשט is not that כויה is without a חבורה, but כויה is with a חבורה. When בן עזאי said חבורה נאמרה תחילה, he meant that when it says כויה, it לכתחילה means with a חבורה, then the פסוק חבורה comes to teach us just the opposite, that it's without a חבורה. Why can't we say just the opposite, that when רבי said כויה נאמרה תחילה, he means that לפי האמת after we see already the word חבורה, so now we know that the word כויה is כויה נאמרה תחילה, is only כויה without a חבורה. And when בן עזאי said חבורה נאמרה תחילה, he doesn't mean what he would have thought before the תורה tells us the word חבורה, but he means לפי האמת, after we have the word חבורה, so now we know that when it says כויה, it means together with a חבורה. And what would we gain if we would say it that way? First of all, we would be saying that the expression that they use is not just a הוה אמינא, what we would have thought, but that is actually what it means, because that is משמע from their לשון, that כויה נאמרה תחילה doesn't mean what we would have thought, but now we know the אמת, that כויה was said לכתחילה without a חבורה. And when he says חבורה נאמרה תחילה, he means that is the אמת, that when it says כויה, it means with a חבורה. But in addition to that, if we would say that, it would come out that which one of the two is the one that holds that you pay for צער שלא במקום נזק, it is רבי. The way we said before it comes out, it is בן עזאי who says that. The way we're going to say now, it's רבי. Now, since this is written in the משנה, and רבי was the one that was מסדר the משניות, so it's much better to say that the משנה goes according to רבי, rather than according to the one that argues on רבי. So that's what רב פפא asked: why did we say the פשט the way we did, and it comes out that the משנה goes according to בן עזאי? Why can't you say the פשט different, and then the משנה will go according to רבי? Why don't we say the פשט that רבי אומר: כויה נאמרה תחילה, that when רבי says לכתחילה when the word כויה is said, it means without a חבורה, just a כויה, just the צער, because סבר he holds כויה דיש בה חבורה משמע, that לכתחילה when it says כויה, it's משמע with a חבורה, with נזק. כתב רחמנא חבורה, so when the תורה writes חבורה, לגלוי עלה דכויה, that comes to reveal the פשט in כויה that דלית בה חבורה, that it has no חבורה. So when he said כויה נאמרה תחילה without a חבורה, that is the אמת, that is after we know the real פשט, after the תורה writes for you the word חבורה. And when בן עזאי אומר, בן עזאי says חבורה נאמרה תחילה, that the word כויה לכתחילה means together with a חבורה, סבר because he holds כויה דלית בה חבורה משמע, that לכתחילה when it says just the word כויה, if not for the other word חבורה later, we would think it means a כויה without a חבורה, just צער without נזק. כתב רחמנא חבורה, when the תורה writes חבורה, לגלוי עלה דכויה, to reveal to us what the word כויה means, that דאי יש בה חבורה אין, if the כויה comes along with a חבורה, then you pay for the כויה, for the צער, אי לא לא, and if not, not, if there is no נזק along with the צער, then you don't pay for the צער. And then it comes out אמסקנא קיימי, that the word that they use is the מסקנא, is the end, is the real פשט, the way we know the meaning in the word כויה at the end, after the תורה already writes the word חבורה. אי נמי, maybe you could say another פשט, that דכולי עלמא they both hold כויה בין דיש בה חבורה בין דלית בה חבורה משמע, that a כויה means whether it has a חבורה or not. So when the תורה says כויה תחת כויה, it means that you should pay for צער even if there is no חבורה. That's the way לכתחילה the word is משמע. But the מחלוקת is והכא בכלל ופרט המרוחקים זה מזה קמיפלגי, that here you have a כלל and a פרט that are far from each other, not close to each other, but there is a הפסק in between, an interruption between, and the מחלוקת is whether we still consider it a כלל ופרט. The דין is that whenever we find in the תורה a כלל and a פרט, the תורה first says a rule, and then the תורה says a פרט, gives a detail in the rule, so then the הלכה is that אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט, that what the כלל includes only what the פרט said. If the תורה wouldn't have mentioned the פרט, the תורה would just give a rule that include many things, then they all would be included in the דין. But since after the כלל, the תורה gives a פרט, so then we say the תורה comes to tell us that even though I said a כלל, what I really mean is only the פרט. אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט, only that actual thing that is mentioned in the תורה. But that is only in the case where the כלל and the פרט are written in the תורה together, one right next to each other. First the תורה gives a כלל, says a general expression, then right away the תורה gives a פרט, mentions a detail, then we say that what the תורה really means is only the detail, not the general כלל. But what is the case if in between the כלל and the פרט there are other words written in between? Do we still דרשן it in the ענין of a כלל and a פרט, or we say it is not anymore a כלל and a פרט? And therefore, this דין, that when there is a כלל and a פרט, אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט, the כלל really means only what the פרט says, wouldn't apply there. And that is actually the case here. The

word כויה is like a כלל, since we just said that they both hold that כויה means whether it has a חבורה or it doesn't have a חבורה. So it's like a כלל including two cases, two possibilities. So if right afterwards the תורה would have written חבורה תחת חבורה, and חבורה is a פרט, then that would reveal to us that you're only חייב if there is a חבורה there. But now that the truth is, in between the words כויה תחת כויה, which is the כלל, and the words חבורה תחת חבורה, which is the פרט, there are other words in between, the words פצע תחת פצע. So the מחלוקת is, רבי סבר, רבי holds, אין דנין אותו בכלל ופרט. We don't דרשן this as a כלל ופרט. And therefore, according to רבי, the דין is still as the כלל, that even if it has no חבורה, still you are חייב for the כויה, for the צער, even if it's שלא במקום נזק, you still pay for the צער. ורבנן סברי, רבנן hold, דנין אותו בכלל ופרט, we still consider it as a כלל and a פרט even though there are words in between, and therefore we say אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט, that the דין is only in the case of the פרט, and therefore he holds that only if there is a חבורה there and you also pay for נזק, that's when you pay for the צער, but if there wouldn't be any נזק there, then you wouldn't pay for the צער. And then the

גמרא asks: וכי תימא, you might say, חבורה דרבי למה לי? Why did the תורה have to write, according to רבי, the word חבורה, since we don't דרשן it as a כלל ופרט? We stick to the כלל, that even if there is צער without נזק, you pay for it. Also, if there is נזק, you also pay, because the כלל remains both. So from the word כויה itself, we already know חבורה, because כויה could mean both, and the פרט doesn't come to teach us any special דין. So then why did the תורה have to tell us the פרט of חבורה? And the גמרא answers: לדמים יתירים, for the extra money. Meaning that if the תורה wouldn't say חבורה תחת חבורה, so we would think that you always pay for צער. Now, if there is צער together with a חבורה, you still pay for the צער, but who says that you also pay for the נזק, the extra money for the נזק? So the תורה has to tell us that you pay for נזק also. Therefore, the תורה writes חבורה תחת חבורה, that because of an injury you must pay for that too. So now we know that you pay for צער separately, and you pay for נזק separately. This is the way it seems the פשט in these words, לדמים יתירים, from רש"י, and this is the way the מהרש"א understood that פשט in רש"י. But תוספות understood the פשט in רש"י differently. תוספות learned that רש"י meant to say that if the תורה would not write חבורה, just כויה, we would think that if you have a כויה, צער together with נזק, you only pay for one, you only pay for the נזק, not for the צער. That's why the תורה has to tell us חבורה, to teach us that when you have a חבורה, you pay for both. You pay for the נזק separately and for the צער separately. So it comes out that according to this פשט, the way תוספות learns in רש"י, that the חידוש of the words חבורה תחת חבורה is to teach us that you pay צער במקום נזק, that even if there is both, so you would think you have to pay only נזק, the פסוק teaches us that you have to pay also צער. And because תוספות learns that way פשט in רש"י, that's why תוספות have a קושיא on רש"י. They say that how can we say in this גמרא that we learn out from the words חבורה תחת חבורה that you have to pay צער even when you pay נזק? Don't we learn that out from the פסוק פצע תחת פצע? And another קושיא that תוספות ask. And therefore תוספות learns the פשט in the גמרא differently. When the גמרא says that according to רבי the words חבורה תחת חבורה come to teach us לדמים יתירים, for extra money, it doesn't mean to tell us that we would think you only pay for one of the two, or for צער or for נזק, and the פסוק comes to teach us that you pay for both. It means to say that in the case, for instance, that you caused him pain that will leave a scar, now, if it wouldn't have left a scar, he would have had the same pain, so we would think that you pay the same amount whether it leaves a scar or not, so the גמרא tells us the פסוק comes to teach us, דא מיינט עס באמת that you have to pay extra money. Since he's going to have more embarrassment later through the pain that he had now, because it's going to leave a scar, so therefore, you have to pay more money. That's what חבורה, תחת חבורה comes to teach us, in addition to כויה תחת כויה that teaches us that you have to pay for צער and it also includes the נזק, that you have to pay even extra money, that's what the פסוק teaches us. That if there is an extra extension to the צער, you must pay for that too. Then the

גמרא continues, we've learned in the משנה: עומדין כמה אדם כיוצא בזה רוצה ליטול וכולו, we estimate how much would a person like him be ready to take in order to have this kind of pain, and that's how much we give him. So the גמרא says: צער במקום נזק היכא שיימינן? When you have to pay for צער, for the pain, but at the same time when you also pay for the נזק, for the damage, for the depreciation, how do you estimate that? In a case where there is no נזק, then you estimate how much would a person be willing to take in order to have this done to him. But in a case where you also cause a damage to him, so then you already estimate of how much this אבר is worth, and that's how much ובפשטות a person would be ready to take in order to have it cut off etc. So how do you estimate with together with the נזק also the pain that he has? אמר אבוה דשמואל, the father of שמואל said, עומדין כמה אדם רוצה ליטול לקטוע לו ידו, we estimate how much would a person be ready to take to have his hand cut off. So the גמרא asks: לקטוע לו ידו? If you estimate how much he would be ready to take to have his hand cut off, לאו צער לחודיה הוא, here, for that, you don't only get צער, הא כולהו חמישה דברים איכא! Then you have all five things there. So if a person would be willing to have this done to him, he would ask for the amount of money a person would get including all five things. So how does that estimate just the value of the צער? ועוד, another thing, בשותי עסקינן? Are we talking about foolish people? A person who would who would let his hand be cut off? A person, for any money in the world, would not have his hand cut off! How can you estimate how much a person would be ready to take to have his hand cut off? אלא, what do we mean? לקטוע ידו הקטועה, how much is a person willing to give to have his hand which is already cut off, to have it cut off? It means to say it's already cut off almost, it just connects, it's just hanging, but it can't function anyway. How much would a person be willing to have that hand cut off? And then all you have is צער, the גמרא thought. So then the גמרא asks: ידו הקטועה, if his hand is already cut off, in other words it's just hanging, נמי לא צער לחודיה איכא, also not only צער is there, הא צער ובושת איכא, there is צער and there's also embarrassment. What kind of embarrassment? דכסיפא ליה מילתא, a person is embarrassed למשקליה לבישרא ולמישדיה לכלבים, to take some of his flesh and throw it to the dogs. Even if it's hanging just there, but nevertheless it is still connected to him. If they will cut it off completely, what will they do with it? They will throw it away, and the dogs will eat it up. So it's an embarrassment for the person. So here it's not just the צער that he will have, he will also have embarrassment. So you can't just estimate how much would a person be willing to give to have that done to him, because that amount includes צער and בושת. We're just trying to figure out how do you figure just the צער. אלא, so what does it mean? עומדין, we estimate כמה אדם רוצה ליטול, how much would a person be willing to take לקטוע לו ידו דמוכתב למלכות בין סם לסייף. If a person had a decree on him from the king that he had to have his hand cut off, but מצד גזירה of the king they would cut it off with סם, with a special medicine, it would hurt very little. How much would a person be willing to take that they should cut off his hand not with that medicine, but with a sword? Where you have more pain. And that amount of money is the amount that you estimate for the צער. But then the גמרא says: אמרי, I'll tell you, הכא נמי, here too, לא שקיל ומצער נפשיה, no person would take any money and to have that צער. Since he's able to have his hand cut off through the medicine, through the סם, why should any person agree to have it cut off by a sword? And no money would be enough to pay for that. אלא, what must we say? עומדין כמה אדם רוצה ליתן לקטוע לו ידו דמוכתב למלכות בין סייף לסם, just opposite. If a person had a decree on him that they should cut off his hand with a sword, and now how much would he be ready to give in order to have it cut off with the medicine that he should have less pain, so that amount that a person would be ready to give for that, that is the amount of צער. But then the גמרא asks that this doesn't fit to our משנה. In our משנה it says we estimate how much would a person be willing to take to have it done to him, but if we're going to say the way we just said, that we estimate how much would a person be willing to give to change האי ליטול, how could the משנה say ליטול? ליטול, we estimate how much he would take, ליתן מיבעי ליה, it should have said how much he would give.

Therefore, אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע, רב הונא the son of רב יהושע said, that what do we mean, ליטול? זה מזה מה שנתן זה. That the word ליטול means to take, that the ניזק, the one that was damaged, takes that amount from the מזיק, the amount a person would be ready to give for this to happen to him. So the word ליטול, which means to take, is not how we estimate it, but this is referring to the payment itself, that when it comes to a היזק, so then a ניזק takes from the מזיק for the צער the amount a person would be ready to give to the king, and that to change the decree from having his hand cut with a sword to having it cut by medicine, etc. Then the גמרא says we learn in the משנה, ריפוי, what is the case of paying for curings? הכהו, if he hit him, חייב לרפאותו וכולי, he has to cure him. And the

משנה says if certain growths grew on it, if they came because of the wound that he made him, then he has to pay to cure that too. If it didn't come because of the wound that he made, then he is פטור. And then the משנה continues, that if it healed and then it reopened, and healed and reopened, all these times he has to pay for the curing. But if it healed completely, and then it reopened, so then the other person is not obligated to pay for that. Then the גמרא says, תנו רבנן, and the רבנן learned, עלו בו צמחים מחמת המכה, if certain things grew on it because of the wound, נסתרה המכה, and the wound reopened, חייב לרפאותו, so he has to cure him, he has to pay for his medical bills, וחייב ליתן לו דמי שבתו, and he also has to pay for the loss of time. Even if it happened later, but since he lost time from work because of the מכה, so the person who did it is obligated to pay for that. ואם שלא מחמת המכה, if it happened not because of the wound that the other person did, אינו חייב לרפאותו, he doesn't have to cure him, ואינו חייב ליתן לו דמי שבתו, and he doesn't have to pay him for the loss of time. רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה says, אף מחמת המכה, חייב לרפאותו ואינו חייב ליתן לו דמי שבתו, that even if it reopened and it came back because of the מכה, so he just has to cure him, but he doesn't have to pay him for lost time. וחכמים אומרים, and the חכמים say, שבתו ורפואתו, that the תורה puts the two together. The תורה says, רק שבתו יתן ורפא ירפא, that you pay him for the loss of time and you have to cure him. So the תורה puts them together to teach us that כל שחייב בשבת חייב בריפוי, that anytime you are obligated to pay for his lost time, you are also obligated to pay for his medical expenses. ושאינו חייב בשבת אינו חייב בריפוי, and if you are not obligated to pay for his lost time, you are also not obligated to pay for his medical expenses. And therefore, since the חכמים hold like רבי יהודה, that in a case like this you do not have to pay for his lost time, so they hold that you also don't have to pay for his medical expenses. So we have three opinions here: the first תנא holds that even if the מכה reopened because of the things that grew on it, that came because of the מכה, so then the first person is obligated to pay for his medical expenses and for his lost time; רבי יהודה holds, you're only obligated to pay for his medical expenses, not for his lost time; and the חכמים hold, that you're not obligated to pay for either of them. And the גמרא asks, ובמאי קמיפלגי? In what do they argue? What is the סברא of their מחלוקת? אמר רבא, so רבא said, אשכחתינהו לרבנן דבי רב, I found the רבנן in the ישיבה of רב, דיתבי וקאמרי, that they were sitting and they were saying, דהכא במכה ניתנה לאגד קמיפלגי. That their argument is based on the סברא whether you allow him to bandage his מכה, his wound. The reason he wants to bandage his wound is so it shouldn't get cold. On the other hand, it might cause it to swell up through the heat. And that's what caused the צמחים, the extra things to grow on it. רבנן סברי, the רבנן hold, מכה ניתנה לאגד, that he does have the right to bandage his מכה. And therefore, when the צמחים grew on this מכה later, it's not his fault, because he had a right to bandage the מכה. And therefore, anything that comes out of the bandage is not his fault, and it's all in the responsibility of the מזיק. And therefore, if it opens up again because of that, the מזיק is completely responsible for it. So therefore he has to pay for the medical expenses, he has to pay for the loss of time, etc. But רבי יהודה סבר, רבי יהודה holds, מכה לא ניתנה לאגד, that A מכה is not allowed to be bandaged. And if it was bandaged, and that caused the swelling, and that caused the problems later on, then it is not in the responsibility of the מזיק, but it is under the responsibility of the ניזק. And therefore, ריפוי concerning curing, דתנא בקרא the תורה repeated it, the תורה says ורפא ירפא, heal he should heal. The תורה writes twice the word heal, so that comes to add an additional דין concerning the medical expenses, so מחייב for that, he is חייב even in a case like this, even if it's not indirectly responsible. But שבת concerning his lost time, דלא תנא בקרא the תורה did not repeat, it just says רק שבתו יתן, לא מחייב so that is not חייב. So he says this is what I heard the רבנן in the ישיבה of רב explaining. ואמינא להו אנא, so he says I told to them, אי מכה לא ניתנה לאגד, if you're saying that the reason of רבי יהודה is because he holds that you have no right to bandage the מכה, דריפוי נמי לא מחייב, then he shouldn't even have to pay for the medical expenses. אלא therefore I must say that the מחלוקת is in something else, דכולי עלמא everyone holds that מכה ניתנה לאגד, but לא ניתנה לאגד יתירה, that you're allowed to bandage the wound, but you're not allowed to bandage it too much. That רבי יהודה סבר, רבי יהודה holds, כיוון דלא ניתנה לאגד יתירה since you're not allowed to do it too much, concerning ריפוי therefore when it comes to curing, דתנא בקרא that the תורה repeated it, מחייב you're חייב. But שבת, for the lost time, דלא תנא בקרא since the תורה did not repeat it, לא מחייב you're not חייב. Even though you were allowed to do it, but since you weren't allowed to do it too much, so therefore in a case where the תורה didn't really stress it concerning that דין, you would be פטור. But רבנן סברי the רבנן, meaning the תנא קמא, the first תנא, they hold that כיוון דתנא בקרא בריפוי, since the תורה repeated it by curing and therefore you claim you are חייב for curing, so אשבת נמי מחייב, so therefore automatically you're חייב also for the lost time, because דאיקיש לריפוי, because the תורה compares the שבת the lost time to the curing, so therefore since you are חייב for curing, you're also חייב for the lost time. ורבי יהודה סבר, but רבי יהודה holds, that שבת לא מחייב, that for שבת you are not חייב, for the lost time you're not חייב, because דמיעטיה קרא, because the תורה excluded it with the word רק. Since the תורה says רק שבתו יתן, רק but you should pay for the lost time, so with the word רק the תורה means to exclude but, only this, not something else. So the תורה comes to say that in a case like this you are not חייב to pay for the שבת. But רבנן, the רבנן the first תנא again who argue on רבי יהודה and they say you are חייב for שבת, רק, that this לימוד of the word רק, this word that comes to exclude doesn't come to exclude this case, but לשלא מחמת המכה הוא דאתאי, it comes to exclude if the צמחים the growths came not because of the מכה, so then you are פטור from paying for שבת. I one might ask it's very simple, if it came back not because of the מכה, certainly the other person is not responsible? But רש"י says that the גמרא will explain that it's in a case where he didn't listen to the doctor. So, טאקע came back not because of the מכה, but still he didn't listen to the doctor to do what the doctor says, so then we might think that you have to pay for the שבת, the פסוק tells us רק that you do not have to pay for the שבת in that case. But in our case where it came back because of the מכה, you have to pay for ריפוי and for שבת. That is the opinion of the first תנא. ורבנן בתראי, but according to the second רבנן the third opinion in the ברייתא, דאמרי that they say כל שחייב בשבת חייב בריפוי, that anytime you are חייב to pay for the lost time you're חייב for the medical bills, וכל שאינו חייב בשבת אינו חייב בריפוי, that if you're not חייב to pay for the lost time you're not חייב to pay for the medical expenses. So the question in the גמרא is ריפוי דתנא בקרא למה לי? So why did the תורה repeat ריפוי? Because as we said before, the only reason the תורה repeats ריפוי to teach us that even in a case like this you still have to pay for the medical expenses, but according to them that they hold that you do not have to pay in a case like this for the medical expenses, so why did the תורה repeat concerning ריפוי concerning the curing? The גמרא answers, מיבעיא ליה לכדתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל. They need it for a different לימוד, for the לימוד that they learned in the ישיבה of רבי ישמעאל. דתניא because we learned in a ברייתא, תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל, a doctor, another person, is able to come and cure. But if a person got sick בידי שמים, he got sick by nature, which means it came directly from השם without another person getting involved, so here we would think that if you get a doctor to cure you, then you're going against the גזירה the decree of השם. So that's why we have to have another time the word ירפא to teach us that even in a case like that, a doctor has a right to cure. Then the גמרא continues, תנו רבנן the רבנן learned, מניין how do we know שעלו בו צמחים מחמת המכה ונסתרה המכה, that if certain things grew on top of the מכה, because of the מכה, and that's why the מכה reopened again, שחייב לרפאותו וחייב ליתן לו שבתו, that you must cure him, it is the obligation of the מזיק to pay for his medical expenses, and also his obligation to pay for his lost time, how do we know that? תלמוד לומר, so the פסוק says, רק שבתו יתן ורפא ירפא. The תורה says that you should pay for his lost time, and you should also cure him, which means that since the תורה says ורפא ירפא, a double לשון, so that comes to teach us that even if it happened in the way mentioned here, that things grew on it and later it reopened, you still have to pay, so we learn that out from the extra word ירפא. And since the תורה puts together שבתו together with ורפא ירפא, so that teaches us that if you are חייב to pay for the ריפוי, for the medical expenses, automatically you are חייב to pay for the lost time too. So then, יכול, I would think, אפילו שלא מחמת המכה, if it reopened not because of the מכה, you also are obligated to pay, תלמוד לומר רק. The תורה says רק, only, which is a מיעוט, comes to exclude, to teach us that if it didn't happen because of the מכה, so then you are not obligated to pay. רב יוסי בר יהודה אומר, רב יוסי, the son of רב יהודה, says, אף מחמת המכה פטור, even if it happened because of the מכה, you're also פטור, שנאמר רק, because the תורה says רק, so that comes to exclude all cases, that if it didn't happen directly from the מכה, it came through the growth that grew on the מכה, so then you are פטור. But what does he mean that you are פטור? Does he mean you are פטור from everything, or does he mean you are only פטור from the lost time, but you are חייב for the medical expenses? So the גמרא says, איכא דאמרי, some say, אף מחמת המכה פטור לגמרי, that even if it happened because of the מכה, you are still פטור from everything, כרבנן בתראי, like the last רבנן, like the third opinion that was mentioned in the previous ברייתא. ואיכא דאמרי, and some say, אף מחמת המכה פטור משבת וחייב בריפוי, that if it happened even through the מכה, you are טאקע פטור from the lost time, but you are חייב for the medical expenses. כמאן? According to who does he hold if that's his opinion? כאבוה, like his father, since we said in the previous ברייתא that רב יהודה holds that if it happened because of the מכה, you are חייב to pay for the medical expenses, but not for the lost time, so if this is the opinion of רב יוסי ברבי יהודה, so then he holds like his father. Then the גמרא says, אמר מר, we just learned before, יכול אפילו שלא מחמת המכה, and I would think that even if it happened not because of the מכה, you still are חייב to pay for שבת and for ריפוי, תלמוד לומר רק. So therefore we have the פסוק רק to exclude that in a case like that you are פטור. So the גמרא asks, שלא מחמת המכה בעי קרא? But if it didn't happen because of the מכה, do you need a פסוק to tell us that you're פטור? Obviously you're פטור. Certainly he is not responsible if it didn't even come because of the מכה. אמרי, so the גמרא says, we will tell you, מאי שלא מחמת המכה, what do we mean that if it happened not because of the מכה we still would have thought that you're חייב? It means כדתניא, like we learned in a ברייתא, we learned, הרי שעבר על דברי הרופא, for instance, he didn't listen to what the doctor said, ואכל דבש, and he ate honey, וכל מיני מתיקה, or all other sweet things, because מפני שהדבש וכל מיני מתיקה קשין למכה, we know that honey or all other sweets are no good for a מכה, and he didn't listen to the doctor telling him he shouldn't eat it, and he went along and he ate it, והעלה מכתו גרגותני, and scabs grew on the wound, יכול, I would think, יהא חייב לרפאותו, that the person who caused, the original person is obligated to cure him, תלמוד לומר רק, so the תורה says רק to exclude that. In other words, on one hand, it is the fault of the first person because it came directly from the מכה, but the person of the with the wound could have prevented it by listening to the doctor. Since he didn't prevent it, that's why you are פטור. But at least we understand why there would have been a הוה אמינא that he should be חייב, because after all, it came from the מכה. Then the גמרא says, מאי גרגותני, what is גרגותני? אמר אביי, נסתרחיסתא, that means, as רש״י explains, dead flesh. Then the גמרא asks, מאי אסותיה, what is the cure, how can you cure this? And the גמרא says, עלוה וקירא וקילבא, which means by aloes, wax, and resin. Then the גמרא continues, ואי אמר ליה, if the person who caused the damage says to the injured man, אסייך אנא, I will cure you, instead of hiring a doctor and I should have to pay for him, I myself will cure you, I'm a doctor myself, אמר ליה, he could say to him, דמית עלי כאריה ארבא, you are to me like a lurking lion. In other words, I don't trust you. ואי אמר ליה, and if he says to him, מייתינא אסיא דמגן במגן, I will find a doctor that will do it for free, אמר ליה, he could say to him, אסיא דמגן במגן מגן שוה, that if you have a doctor that's going to do it for free, he's worth nothing. ואי אמר ליה, and if he says to him, מייתינא לך אסיא רחיקא, I will bring you a doctor from far away, אמר ליה, he could say to him, אסיא רחיקא עיניה עוורא. A doctor from far away has blind eyes, which means that he's going to come here, and then he's going to leave right away, and he won't be able to take care of me later, so he won't see what's happening to me later, and therefore, I do not want you to do that. אי אמר ליה ההוא, on the other hand, if he, the injured man, says to the other one: הב לי לדידי, you give me the money, ואנא מסינא נפשאי, I'll cure myself, in other words, instead of me getting a doctor, and you to pay to the doctor, you give me the money, and I'll take care of myself, אמר ליה, he could say to him: פשעת בנפשך, you're going to neglect yourself, ושקלת מינאי טפי, and you're going to take from me more. You won't take care of yourself, and then the bills will run up more, and then you will come back to me, and I should pay you more. אי אמר ליה, and if he says to him: קיץ לי מכת, you know what, give me a fixed amount. Let's make up a fixed amount, that's how much you give me, and even if it's not enough, I won't have the right to ask for more. אמר ליה, he could still say to him: כל שכן דפשעת בנפשך, certainly you are going to get and neglect yourself, and then you will remain a crippled for a long time, וקרו לי שור המזיק, and they will call me a damaging ox. It'll all be my fault. So, תאקע, you won't be able to ask for more money, but I will get a bad name, and I don't want that. Then the גמרא continues: תנו רבנן, we learned: וכולם משתלמין במקום נזק, that all four other things, צער, ריפוי, שבת, and בושת, are all paid even in a case where you have to pay נזק anyway, when you have to pay for the depreciation anyway. The גמרא says: מנא הני מילי? How do we know that? אמר רב זביד משמיה דרבא, Rav Zvid said in the name of Rava: אמר קרא, because the פסוק says: פצע תחת פצע, a wound for a wound, so this extra פסוק comes to teach us: ליתן צער במקום נזק, to tell us that you have to pay צער also in a place where you pay נזק anyway. And then the גמרא asks: האי מיבעיא ליה, don't we need that extra פסוק for something else, לרבות, to include שוגג כמזיד, that if a person causes damage to somebody else, so שוגג, if he does it unintentionally, is the same as if he would do it intentionally, ואונס, if it was forced, it has the same דין כרצון as if he would do it willingly? So that is what the לימוד פצע תחת פצע goes for. So how can you say that the words פצע תחת פצע comes to teach us that you pay for צער even when you pay נזק? The גמרא says: אם כן, if so, if it would only come to teach that, נכתוב קרא, let the תורה write: פצע בפצע, a wound for a wound. מאי פצע תחת פצע? Why does it say an extra word תחת, a wound under a wound, instead of a wound? שמע מינה תרתי. So now we know both. We know the לימוד that it comes to tell us that by an אדם שוגג is the same as מזיד, and אונס like רצון, and then it also comes to teach us that you pay for צער even in the case where you pay for נזק. רב פפא משמיה דרבא אמר, Rav Pappa in the name of Rava said: אמר קרא, the פסוק says: ורפא ירפא. It says twice: רפא ירפא, twice the word, ליתן, to teach us, ריפוי במקום נזק, that you also have to pay for the ריפוי, for the medical expenses, even if you pay for נזק separately. But then the גמרא asks: האי מיבעיא ליה לכדתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל? Don't we need this לימוד from this double word ורפא ירפא to teach us what רבי ישמעאל said? דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל, didn't we learn in the ישיבה of רבי ישמעאל: ורפא ירפא, the reason the תורה says double, מכאן, from here we see שניתנה רשות לרופא לרפאות, that a doctor has the right to cure? And the גמרא answers: אם כן, if so, if it would only come to teach us this, נכתוב קרא ורופא ירפא. The תורה should have said the doctor should cure him, so we would know that the doctor has a right to cure. Why does it say ורפא ירפא? שמע מינה, that comes to teach us ליתן ריפוי במקום נזק, that you have to pay for ריפוי even in a case where you pay for נזק. But then the גמרא asks: ואכתי מיבעיא ליה לכדאמרן, but still don't we need this פסוק ורפא ירפא to teach us the דין that we mentioned before, למישנא בקרא בריפוי, that the תורה tells us a double דין concerning curing, that even if things grew on it, and because of that, later, it opened up, if it came because of the מכה he is still responsible to pay. And as we said before, we learned that out from the double expression of ורפא ירפא? And the גמרא says: אם כן, if so, if it would only come for that, לימא קרא, let the תורה say: או רפוי רפוי, the תורה should say twice the same word, רפוי רפוי, או ירפא ירפא, or twice the same word, ירפא ירפא. מאי ורפא ירפא? The תורה says two different words, שמע מינה, so that comes to teach us also this דין: ליתן ריפוי במקום נזק, that you have to pay for ריפוי in a case of נזק. So from this פסוק now we know all three דינים: we know that the תורה gave רשות for a doctor to cure; we know the other דין, that if it העלה צמחים מחמת המכה, you still have to pay; and also this דין, that even if you pay for נזק, you also have to pay for the ריפוי. Then the גמרא says: מכלל, from here we see, דמשכחת להו שלא במקום נזק, that it's possible to have all these four things in a case where you don't have to pay for נזק, for the damage. Since we have to learn out specially that even if you pay for the נזק, you must pay for these four things, obviously there's a possibility to pay for these four things without paying for נזק. The גמרא asks: שלא במקום נזק היכי משכחת להו? How can you have to pay for these four things without having to pay for נזק? The גמרא explains, צער כדקתני, צער for pain, as we learned in the משנה. It said in the משנה, צער, how would you have to pay for pain? כוואו בשפוד או במסמר, he burned him with a burning spear or with a nail, ואפילו על צפורנו, even on the nail of the person, מקום שאינו עושה חבורה, in a place where you don't cause a wound. So

here there is צער, and there is no נזק. ריפוי, what is the case of paying for medical expenses without causing a נזק? דהוה כאיב ליה מכתא. Something hurt him from before. וסליק, and it was curing, healing. ואתא ויהיב ליה סמא חריפא, came a person and put some drugs on it, some sharp drugs, ואחווריה לבשריה, and it caused his skin to become white. וצריך למיתב ליה סמא לאנקוטיה גווני דבשריה. So you need another drug to return the color of the skin. So here you have to cure him, but there was no נזק done. All he did was, he changed the color of the skin. So now you have to pay for medical expenses of getting the color back, but there is no נזק. שבת, what is the case of having to pay for lost time? דחבשה באינדרונא. If he locked someone up in a room. So then there is no damage done, but nevertheless there was lost time. And בושת, when you have to pay for embarrassment without נזק, דרק ליה באפיה, for instance if he spit in his face. Then the גמרא continues, we learned in the משנה, שבת, how do you estimate the loss of time?

רואין אותו כאילו הוא שומר קישואין. We look at him as if during all that time he couldn't work, he would have watched a field of cucumbers, and whatever money he would have got paid for that job, so then we have to pay him that much. The גמרא says, תנו רבנן, and the רבנן learned, שבת, when it comes to pay for lost time, רואין אותו כאילו הוא שומר קישואין, so we look at him as if he would have watched cucumbers, and that's how much he gets. ואם תאמר, but you might say, לקתה מידת הדין, that the דין suffers. In other words, it is not fair, because דאי מיתפח האי גברא, if this person would be cured, לאו אגרא דשומר קישואין הוה שקיל, he wouldn't have taken a salary for watching cucumbers. He would have done a better job. אלא דלי דדוולא, he might have carried water in buckets, ושקיל אגרא, he would take a bigger salary. אי נמי אזיל בשליח, he might become an agent, a messenger, ושקיל אגרא, he would take a higher salary. Why estimate in the lowest salary, saying that we look as if he would have watched cucumbers, and that's the amount of money you give him? But the answer is, מידת הדין לא לקתה, the justice does not suffer. Because שכבר נתן לו דמי ידו ודמי רגלו, because he already paid him for the worth of his hand or for his foot. Since you have to pay for שבת in addition to the נזק, so he already paid him for the hand and for the foot. So we look at him as if he already has no hand and foot, and that so to speak was bought by the person who paid for him. So now that he has no hand or no foot, so now we pay him according to the type of job he could have done without a hand or without a foot. And therefore we estimate how much he would have been paid for a job done under these conditions, and that's how much we give him for his שבת. Then the גמרא says,

אמר רבא, רבא said, קטע את ידו, if he chopped off his hand, נותן לו דמי ידו, then you pay him for the value of his hand, ושבת, when it comes to pay for lost time, רואין אותו כאילו הוא שומר קישואין, so you see as if he would have been able to watch cucumbers, and that's how much you get paid for that loss of loss of time. Because even without a hand he still could stand and watch a field of cucumbers. So that's what he could have done, and that's how much we pay him. שיבר את רגלו, but if he broke his foot, נותן לו דמי רגלו, you pay him for the value of the foot, ושבת, how much do you pay him for loss of time? רואין אותו כאילו שומר את הפתח. We see as if he could have watched the door. Here already, he couldn't even watch a field of cucumbers, because for that you have to have feet to be able to walk around back and forth to see that no one enters. But since he knocked off his foot, he broke his foot, so he can't even do that. So here you have to see how much he would have gotten paid if he would have been standing in one place and watch the door, and that's how much you give him. סימא את עינו, if he blinded him in his eye, נותן לו דמי עינו, so you pay him for the value of the eye, ושבת, and concerning the loss of time, רואין אותו כאילו הוא טוחן בריחים, as if he would have gave him a job of having him grind in a mill, because that you could do even without seeing. חירשו, if you made him deaf, נותן לו דמי כולו, then you're paying for the whole value of the person. Since if a person is deaf he can't do anything, so then this person has no value whatsoever now, so therefore he has to pay him for the value of the whole person.

תוספות ask the קשיא, it seems like there's a contradiction between what רבא said and what the גמרא said before. רבא said that without a foot you cannot even be a שומר קישואין, you can't even watch a cucumber field, but in the גמרא before it said in the ברייתא that if he chopped off his hand or he cut off his foot, you pay him שבת as if he would have been watching a cucumber field, is משמע that even without a foot he still could watch a cucumber field. So first תוספות says that when the ברייתא said before that you pay him as if he would have been a שומר קישואין, that only refers to the case of the hand, not to the case of the foot. Another תירוץ תוספות says that in the גמרא, it means that he chopped off both of his feet. So then he can't even walk around as a שומר קישואין. But in the ברייתא, when it said that even if he doesn't have a foot, he still could be a שומר קישואין, that is a case where he still has one foot. And a ראיה תוספות brings that in the case of רבא we're talking that he doesn't have both feet, is because the other case was when he blinded in his eyes, and there we say he can't even watch the door, and therefore he picks another type of job that he could do. But that only means if he made him blind in both eyes. Because if he made him blind only in one eye, he still could do all these different things. So it must be that he made him blind in both eyes. So too when he says that without a foot he can't be a שומר קישואין, it means that if he doesn't have both feet. And תוספות brings a ראיה in תוספתא that says that if a person became limp, that he's only walking on one foot, we still judge the שבת that he would have been a שומר קישואין. So we see that with one foot you still could be a שומר קישואין. So therefore we must say that when רבא says that without a foot he can't be a שומר קישואין, that means if you don't have both feet. And then תוספות says something else, that if for instance the person was a מלמד תינוקות, he was a teacher, we don't say that we give him based on the salary of a שומר קישואין. Or in the case of a person who was an expert, he would cut diamonds, etc., we also don't say that we only give him like a שומר קישואין, or in a case where he doesn't have the feet we give him like a שומר הפתח, because in that case it is לוקה מידת הדין. The דין, the justice does suffer. So what it means here, סתם people who are not special בעלי אומנות, so there we say that instead of the job that he actually did, he could have been a שומר קישואין. But if a person did a very, very important job and got paid a lot of money, then we give him more than just for a שומר קישואין. Then the גמרא

continues, בעי רבא, רבא asked in a בעיא, asked a question: קיטעה לידו ולא אמדוה, what happens if he knocked off his hand and the בית דין didn't evaluate yet how much he has to pay him for צער, ריפוי, שבת, and בושת, for everything? And then שיברה לרגלו, he also broke his foot, ולא אמדוה, and בית דין didn't evaluate yet. סימא את עינו ולא אמדוה, and then he blinded his eye, and still בית דין didn't evaluate yet. ולבסוף חירשו, and at the end he made him deaf, where רבא himself said before the דין is that you pay for the whole person, מאי הוא, what is the דין? מי אמרינן, and do we say כיוון דלא אמדוה, since they didn't estimate it in between after every occurrence, דבחדא אומדנא סגיא ליה, that one estimation at the end is enough, ויהיב ליה דמי כוליה בחדא הדדי, and he pays him for making him deaf for the whole person and he pays him for everything together? או דלמא, or maybe חדא וחדא אמדינן, we estimate each one separately, we now estimate each one separately from before, ויהבינן ליה, and we give him? Now one thing is for sure, that there is no שאלה that for נזק you don't have to give separately, because it'll come out for the same amount anyway. Because since at the end you pay for the whole person, so automatically you include his hand and his foot. Even if you would estimate him separately, as soon as you estimate for instance how much the value of his hand is and that's how much you would have to pay him, automatically from that point and on, the person is worth less with that amount. And then when you evaluate separately his foot, he gets even less, and then his eye gets even less, so at the end he's only worth a little bit. So whether you estimate it all separately or altogether is the same thing, so there is no question. But the נפקא מינה, what is the question concerning, what is the difference? דבעי למיתב ליה צער ובושת דכל חדא וחדא, whether he has to pay him for the pain and for the embarrassment of each occurrence separately. נהי, that is true, דנזק וריפוי ושבת דכל חדא וחדא לא יהבינן ליה, for the נזק, for the damage, and for the medical expenses, and for the loss of time, he definitely doesn't have to pay him for each occurrence separately. Why? דכיוון דקא יהיב ליה דמי כוליה, since at the end he has to pay him the value of the whole person, כמאן דקטליה דמי, it's as if he killed him. He bought him completely. והא יהיב ליה דמי כוליה, and he paid him for the whole person, so therefore doesn't have to pay him anymore. So for the נזק, as we said before, definitely not, because it's all the same. Also for the ריפוי not, because he didn't cure him in between. For the שבת not, for not working not, because since he is now his עבד. So the fact that he didn't work doesn't matter because he belongs to him completely. But the

question is צער ובושת. מיהא דכל חדא וחדא יהיב, for the pain and for the embarrassment, he does give him for each occurrence separately, דהא הוה ליה צער ובושת, because after all he did have pain and embarrassment every time separately? Or doesn't he give him, because now that he pays him for the whole thing, he belongs to him and everything is included. And he continues, ואם תמצי לומר, and if you're going to answer this question and come to a conclusion that כיון דלא אמדוה, since they did not evaluate him in between, כיהיב ליה דמי כולהו בהדא הדדי, so therefore at the end when he pays him for the whole person, so everything is included and he does not have to pay him separately for each occurrence for the צער and the בושת, so I have another question, he says. אמדוה מאי, what would be the דין if they did evaluate him in between, but he still didn't pay for it? After he broke his hand, they evaluated how much he owes him, but he didn't pay it. Then he broke his foot, and they evaluated that, and he didn't pay him yet. Then he blinded him with his eye, and they evaluated that, and he didn't pay him. And then he made him deaf, and now he has to pay him for the whole thing. So now the question is: מי אמרינן, do we say, כיון דאמדוה חדא חדא בעי למיתב ליה, since they evaluated it each time separately, so he has to pay him for each time separately? או דילמא, or maybe, כיון דלא שלים, that he didn't pay him yet in between, יהיב ליה דמי כולי, so he pays him for the whole person and doesn't have to pay him anymore? And the גמרא says, תיקו, this question remains without an answer. But this is only the way רש״י learns the פשט in the גמרא's איבעיא. But תוספות says that מילא נזק and שבת, we understand why you shouldn't give it. It's all included in the amount that he's going to pay at the end. Since at the end he will pay for the whole person, so the value of each part is included. And also, the fact that he wasn't able to work during that time is also included, since he is like his עבד. But for the medical expenses, why is it so simple that that should be included in the money that he will pay for the person at the end? Why is that more simple than צער and בושת? And therefore תוספות says that you should be גורס ריפוי together with צער and בושת, and not together with נזק and שבת. In other words, when the גמרא says that there is a שאלה concerning צער and בושת, really the גמרא שאלה is also concerning ריפוי, not like רש״י. And then תוספות asks: But still, what is the גמרא שאלה? Why should he become פטור for paying for ריפוי, צער, and בושת? Because at the end, he made him deaf and he will have to pay for the whole thing. Why is this different? A person cut off someone else's hand, that even though he has to pay for the נזק, he has to pay for the depreciation, which is the worth of his hand, nevertheless, he has to pay for his medical expenses. And he has to pay for the צער, for the pain, and for the בושת. And we don't say since he pays for the whole hand, so now that's his, and therefore, nothing else has to be paid for. The same thing here. Even though he pays for the complete person, why shouldn't he still have to pay for the צער and for the ריפוי and for the בושת? And another קשיא תוספות says, that what happens if a person injures a חרש? A person injures a deaf person. Do we say he's פטור from ריפוי, צער, and בושת? This deaf person still has צער, ריפוי, and בושת. So you still would have to pay. So here, too, even though he made him deaf, still he should have to pay for the צער, ריפוי, and בושת. And therefore תוספות says the פשט is different. That that is clear that you do have to pay for the צער and for the בושת and for the ריפוי for each separate occurrence. The whole שאלה of the גמרא is, for instance, if he knocks off his hand on Sunday, and they didn't evaluate how much he has to pay. Then on Monday, he broke his foot, and they didn't evaluate. On Tuesday, he made him deaf. So do we say that we consider it as if it was all done together in one day, and we evaluate it all together, or do we say since these occurrences happened on different days, so we evaluate the ריפוי, צער, and בושת from each day separately? And that שאלה would only be in a case where if you evaluate it all together, it won't be the same amount of money as if you evaluate it separately. By doing it separately, it'll add up to more money. And that is the שאלה: Do we look at it all as one, and therefore you would pay the smaller amount of money, or do we look at it all as if they all happened together, and you only pay the lesser amount of money? And the מסקנא of the גמרא is תיקו. Now according to the רמב״ם who learns that whenever the גמרא has two בעיות, and the second בעיא is written in the form of ואם תמצי לומר of the first, that even if you're going to answer the first so-and-so, then I have a second one, so the רמב״ם learns that the way the גמרא says the ואם תמצי לומר, that is the answer to the first one, that is the הלכה. And then the second one is the one that remains with a תיקו. So therefore in this case according to the רמב״ם, the answer to the first question would be that you don't have to pay for each one separately, but you pay all together after he made him deaf, as the גמרא says the ואם תמצי לומר כיון דלא אמדוה כיהיב ליה דמי כולהו בהדא הדדי. And concerning the second question, it would remain with a תיקו without an answer.