Chovel uMazzik - Chapter 2

I.e., as the Rambam explains in the subsequent halachot, each type of injury is individual and requires payment according to the type of loss the injured person suffered. We do not say that since the person who caused the injury is not required to make all five payments, he need not make any at all.

The Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 420:3) states that included in medical treatment are any dietary supplements necessary for the person’s recovery.

I.e., there is no need to pay for damages, for there is no permanent injury.

I.e., there is no need to pay for damages, for there is no permanent injury. Nor is there a need to pay for unemployment, for one can work with a swollen head.

The Rambam’s source is the Jerusalem Talmud, Bava Kama 8:1, which states that the person delivered the blow b’lo ro’im. The Ra’avad interprets this phrase to mean “in a place where no one saw.” The commentaries explain that there is no fundamental disagreement between the two authorities, and each would accept the other’s view. Indeed, it is necessary for them to incorporate the other view. (See Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 420:7; Sefer Me’irat Einayim 420:9.) The question is merely one of emphasis.

Since these portions of the body are covered, the blow did not cause him any embarrassment.

For the blow caused no damage whatsoever. It is, however, embarrassing to be struck in public.

The Maggid Mishneh explains that this also refers to a situation where the wound was inflicted in private, and thus no embarrassment was caused.

For his hair will not grow back, and this is a permanent loss.

That involve pain and require medical attention.

The Tur (Choshen Mishpat 420) interprets this as referring to a person who is trained in this skill, and not to people at large.

Sefer Me’irat Einayim 420:14 explains that the problem is not that he cannot shake his hair - because if so, payment for this would be included in nezek, the reimbursement for permanent damage. Instead, the intent is that he cannot shake his head at all - because of the pain. This is what prevents him from dancing.

And the person who caused the injury is therefore liable for pain and for the temporary loss of employment.

According to Shiurei Torah, a barleycorn is approximately one centimeter in length. Our translation follows the reading of the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 420:14), kase’orah. Others read the word as k’sa’arah, like a hair.

Since he did not touch him, he is considered an indirect cause of the injury (grama).

When a person causes a colleague to become deaf, he must pay his entire worth, as stated in Halachah 12.

Since physical contact was made, the attacker is considered a direct cause of the injury.

This phrase generally introduces a law for which the Rambam has no previous Rabbinic source, but rather has arrived at based on deductive reasoning.

I.e., with regard to payment for a loss of limb, there is no difference with regard to the nature of the individual. With regard to pain, by contrast, the individual’s personal tendencies are considered.

I.e., the previous halachah provides us with guidelines that apply whether or not a limb was lost. This halachah focuses on the loss of a limb.

That would not cause pain.

The decree of a king is mentioned because otherwise a person would never consent to losing one of his limbs.

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Bechorot 4:6), the Rambam explains the meaning of this term:
I have heard many interpretations, and none of them are satisfactory.... This refers to a person who is capable and expert in his profession and thus worthy of earning a significant amount. [He] is not paid the sum given to such a worker, but rather that paid to an ordinary worker from this profession.... This is the intent of the phrase “like a worker of the trade in which he is employed.”
“Like an unemployed worker of the trade in which he is employed” implies [a further reduction], dependent on the amount of toil or rest involved in performing that profession. For example, there are certain tasks that require strenuous labor - e.g., iron workers or hewers of marble. If a worker in such a profession were given the chance of performing this labor or resting, he would prefer to rest, even though he would receive much less.
Thus, according to the Rambam’s conception, the injured person makes two waivers. He must forfeit the additional money that he would earn if he is more skillful than the ordinary person in his profession. He must also consider that he is resting and give up the amount of his wage that he would sacrifice in order to rest.
Rabbenu Chanan’el offers a different interpretation, explaining that this refers to a worker who is unemployed and would thus hire himself out for a lower wage than usual. This interpretation is also accepted by many of the other Sephardic authorities. The Tur (Choshen Mishpat 420) offers an interpretation similar to the Rambam’s.

The victim has already received compensation for his limb. Included in that was compensation for his loss of earnings. Thus, the unemployment assessment here refers to a lesser amount, work that he could have performed without the limb he lost.

See Halachah 15.

As mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 2, damages are evaluated by considering the victim as a servant being sold in the market place, and evaluating his value before the injury and his value afterwards. Once he has been made deaf, he would have no value, for no one would pay for a deaf servant.

As the Rambam continues to explain, a person inflicted several injuries upon a colleague without an assessment being made. Afterwards, he inflicted an injury upon him that was severe enough to require him to pay his entire worth.

The Maggid Mishneh explains that the person who caused the injury is freed of the obligation for damages and unemployment for the smaller claims, since they are included in the payment for his entire worth. He must nevertheless pay for medical bills, embarrassment and pain for each of the smaller injuries. This concept is clearly spelled out by Rabbenu Asher and the Tur, and quoted by the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 420:26).

I.e., his entire worth after suffering the injuries, but not his entire worth before suffering the injuries (Maggid Mishneh).

This question is left unresolved by Bava Kama 85b. Therefore, because of the principle that money cannot be expropriated from the person in possession unless there is a certain claim against him, we do not expropriate the money from the person who caused the injury. By the same token, if the money is taken by the injured party, it should not be expropriated from him. For until it is established with certainty that the money does not rightfully belong to him, once it enters his possession, he is not required to give it up.
The Rambam’s opinion is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 420:26). The Ramah cites the opinion of the Ramban and the Tur, who maintain that when a question of law is unresolved, and one party seizes the other’s property, the property that was seized must be returned.

The cost of the physician and any medication and treatment he requires.

As indicated by Halachah 17, this sum is not given to the injured party himself, but rather paid to the court, which will pay the bills for the injured party or pay directly to the physicians caring for him.

Our Sages gave the person who caused the injury this benefit lest the injured party intentionally prolong his illness, so that the person who caused the injury will be required to pay more. Although there are times when this enactment will work against the interests of the person who caused the injury - e.g., when the injured party recovers quickly - by and large it will be to his benefit.

For the same reason explained in the previous note.

And he therefore has the choice of accepting it or not.

I.e., the continuing effects of the injury. I.e., people will continue to refer to him as one who caused damage, because the injury will not be healed.

This law applies even if he is in fact a physician. For the person who was injured will not desire to be treated by the person who inflicted the injury (Bava Kama 85a).

In the latter instance, we tell him: “A person who works for nothing is worth nothing” (ibid.).

Despite the fact that if he had paid the initial assessment, he would not have been liable for this amount.

This is the version in the standard texts of the Mishneh Torah. It has aroused the objections of most commentaries and several - e.g., the Maggid Mishneh, the Migdal Oz and the Radbaz - maintain that it is a printing error. This is also reflected by a comparison to many authoritative manuscripts and the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah (Bava Kama 8:1), which states that if a new ailment affects the injured person, the one who caused the injury is not liable.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo offers some justification for the version of the standard text. Nevertheless, in his Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 420:19), he rules that the person who caused the injury is not liable for these expenses.

He is not liable for the unemployment (or for the medical expenses, according to the above opinions) because this infection did not come about as a result of his actions.

Since the aggravation of the injury came about because of the injured person’s negligence.

Such a respite is granted for the payment of certain obligations. In this instance, however, even if he cannot receive a proper price for his property, he must sell it immediately and pay for the damages he caused.

Sefer Me’irat Einayim 420:31 emphasizes that this law applies only with regard to instances where the person caused embarrassment alone. If he caused embarrassment together with injury, since he must pay the other assessments immediately, he must also pay for the embarrassment at that time.
Sefer Me’irat Einayim also states that the same principle should apply when the person caused his victim only pain, but no financial loss. The Rambam does not mention this law, because it is not explicitly stated in the Talmud.