Strengthening of question: Surely we must apply this principal when one kills someone smaller or larger than himself! We cannot say that we do not kill the murderer in such a case, for it says "there will be one (common) law for you"! Rather, since (the primary damage was that) he took his soul, the murderer's soul is taken.

Similarly, the damager deprived the victim of sight, so his sight is taken from him! (The Gemara rejected the Beraisa's proof.)

(Beraisa - R. Shimon): "An eye in place of an eye" refers to money.

Suggestion: Perhaps it literally means that he loses his eye!

Rejection: If a man who was blind, missing a limb or lame, and he inflicted this defect on someone else, we could not fulfill "an eye in place of an eye." The Torah said "there will be one law for you"!

Question: This is no answer. When it is possible to fulfill "an eye in place of an eye", we do so. When we cannot, we cannot, and he is exempt!

Strengthening of question: We must say so about a Tereifah (a man terminally ill due to damage to an organ) who killed a healthy man! (We cannot accept testimony to kill him, since healthy witnesses, if found to be Zomemim, could not be killed for trying to kill a Tereifah.)

Rather, we kill a murderer when it is possible (e.g. he is healthy). When we cannot, we exempt him. (The Beraisa's proof is rejected.)

(Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael - Beraisa): "So will be given to him" refers to money.

Question: "Like (a man) who will give a blemish in a man" does not refer to money!

Answer: Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael expounds the repetition in the next verse.

It already says "a man who will give a blemish in a man, like he did, so will be done to him";

"So will be given to him" is extra to teach that he gives money.

Question: "Like when (a man) will give a blemish in a man" is also extra. What does it teach?

Answer: It was only written for the sake of the end of the verse "So will be given to him".

(D'Vei R. Chiya): "A hand for a hand" refers to something given from hand to hand, i.e. money.

Question: If so, we should similarly expound "a foot for a foot"!

Answer: D'Vei R. Chiya expounds the repetition in the next verse.

It already says "You will do to (a Zomem witness) like he plotted to do to his brother";

If Beis Din cuts off the hand of one who cut off a hand, there would be no need to say "a hand for a hand"!

Rather, it is extra to teach that one who cut off a hand pays money.

Question: Why does it say "a foot for a foot"?

Answer: Since it needed to write "a hand for a hand", it also said "a foot for a foot".

(Abaye): We can learn (that money is paid) from Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah.

(Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah): "An eye for an eye, a soul for a soul", not an eye and a soul for an eye;

If Beis Din inflicted bodily damage, they would blind the eye of one who blinded an eye - sometimes this would kill him, and he lost his eye and his soul for an eye!

Objection: Perhaps we inflict bodily damage only when we estimate that this will not kill him!

If we estimated that it will not kill him, and he died, this is not a problem.

(Mishnah): If Beis Din estimated how many lashes a person can endure without dying, but the person died, no one is liable.

(Rav Zvid): "A wound for a wound" teaches that there is compensation for pain even when there is also compensation for Nezek.

We cannot say that Beis Din inflicts the same damage on the damager. This would cause the same pain, so the verse would not be needed!

Objection: This is not always true. Perhaps it is the victim's nature to suffer more pain from the same wound than the damager does!

Question: If so, what does the verse teach?

Answer: It teaches that the damager pays the victim for the additional pain the victim experienced.

(Rav Papa): "V'Rapo Yerapei" teaches that there is compensation for Refu'ah even when there is also compensation for Nezek.

It cannot be that Beis Din inflicts the same damage on the damager. He would also need to be healed, so the verse would not be needed!

Objection: This is not always true! Perhaps the victim's skin heals slower from the same wound than the damager's!

Question: If so, what does the verse teach?

Answer: It teaches that the damager pays the victim for the victim's additional medical expenses.

(Rav Ashi): We learn a Gezeirah Shavah "Tachas-Tachas" from an ox.

It says here (about a man who damaged a man) "an eye Tachas an eye", and it says there (about an ox that damaged an ox) "he will pay an ox Tachas an ox";

Just like the compensation for an ox is monetary, also compensation for an eye.

Question: Why learn the Gezeirah Shavah from an ox? We can learn from a man!

Regarding a murderer it says "you will give a soul Tachas a soul";

Just like that compensation is literally true, also compensation for an eye!

Answer: It is preferable to learn damages from damages, and not from murder.

Objection: To the contrary! It is preferable to learn a man (who strikes) from man, and not from an animal (that damages)!

Correction (Rav Ashi): Rather, we learn the Gezeirah Shavah from a rapist - "Tachas that he pained her".

This discusses damages to and by people, like we seek to learn about.

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer) "An eye in place of an eye" is literal.

Question: Does R. Eliezer really argue with all the previous Tana'im?!

Answer #1 (Rabah): No. He teaches only that we do not evaluate the victim like a slave.

Objection (Abaye): Will we evaluate him like a free man? There is no value associated with a free man!

Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): Rather, we do not evaluate the eye of the victim, rather the eye of the damager (like a redemption of his eye).

A child's hand was severed (by a donkey). Rav Papa bar Shmuel said that they should evaluate the four damages.

Question (Rava): The Mishnah lists five damages!

Answer (Rav Papa): I meant, the four damages in addition to Nezek.

Question (Abaye): An animal only pays Nezek!

Rav Papa: Did an animal damage him? If so, go evaluate the Nezek.

Question: We must evaluate what he would be sold for like a slave!

Rav Papa: Go evaluate what he would be sold for like a slave.

The boy's father: No, that is a disgrace for him!

People: You deprive him of money that he is entitled to!

His father: When he grows older, I will appease him with my money.

An ox chewed the hand of a child.

Rava: Go evaluate what he would be sold for like a slave.

Question (Rabanan): You taught that in Bavel we do not collect anything that requires an evaluation of one's slave value!

Rava: I did not say that the damager must pay this. Rather, if the victim grabs payment, we must know how much he may keep.

(Rava): If a man or ox damaged an ox, we collect this in Bavel. If a man or ox damaged a man, we do not collect this in Bavel.

Question: What is the difference between them?

Answer: We don't collect damages to a man, because the Torah says "Elohim (expert judges)." Only judges with Semichah may judge this (and we lack such judges in Bavel).

Question: Also regarding damages to an ox, it says "Elohim"!

Answer: We (judges in Chutz la'Aretz) are Sheluchim of ordained judges in Eretz Yisrael to collect damages to an ox, just like we are Sheluchim to judge cases of admissions and loans.

Question: Also regarding damages to a man, we should be Sheluchim to collect!

Answer #1: We are Sheluchim only for cases that we know how to judge. (We do not know the value of people.)

Objection #1: Also when an ox or person damages an ox, we do not know its value!

Rather, we see what people pay for oxen.

Likewise, when a person or ox damages a person, we can see what people pay for slaves!

Objection #2: Kefel of a thief, also four and five are fixed. We should be Sheluchim to collect them!

Answer #2: We are Sheluchim to collect only principal, but not to collect fines.

Objection: If a man damages a man, this is principal. We should collect it!

Answer #3: We are Sheluchim only to collect things that are common. It is uncommon for a man to strike a man.

Objection: Embarrassment and blemish (of a virgin Na'arah who was raped or seduced) are common. We should be Sheluchim to collect them!

Answer: Indeed, we are!

Rav Papa collected 400 Zuz for embarrassment.

Rejection: Rav Papa erred.

Rav Chisda had asked Rav Nachman about payments for embarrassment. Rav Nachman replied that we do not collect them in Bavel.

Answer #4: We are Sheluchim only to collect common things in which the victim loses money;

If a man hit a man, even though the victim loses money, since it is not common, we are not Sheluchim to judge it.

Even though embarrassment is common, since the victim does not lose money, we are not Sheluchim to judge it.

Question: Rava said above (end of 84a) that we collect for an ox that damages an ox. He contradicts himself!

(Rava): We do not collect for an ox that damaged in Bavel.

Question: What did it damage?

If it struck a man, Rava should have taught a bigger Chidush. We do not collect even for a man who struck a man!

Answer: Rather, it struck an ox, and Rava taught that we do not collect!

Answer #1: We do not collect from a Tam. We collect from a Mu'ad.

Objection: Rava taught that (becoming) Mu'ad does not apply in Bavel!

Answer: The case is, it became Mu'ad in Eretz Yisrael, then it came to Bavel.

Objection: This is not common. We are not Sheluchim to judge uncommon things!

Answer: The case is, judges of Eretz Yisrael came to Bavel, it became Mu'ad in front of them. (Afterwards, it damaged in front of judges of Bavel.)

Objection: Also this is not common, so we are not Sheluchim to judge it!

Answer #2: Regarding Shen and Regel, which are Mu'ad from the beginning, Rava taught that we collect for an ox that damaged an ox.

(Mishnah): To evaluate pain, if he burned him with a spit or nail (even on his fingernail)...

Question: Which Tana holds that one pays for pain even if no Nezek was inflicted?

Answer (Rava): It is Ben Azai.

(Beraisa - Rebbi): The Torah first discusses a scalding;

Ben Azai: The Torah first discusses a wound.

Question: What do they argue about?

Answer #1: Rebbi holds that "Keviyah" (scalding) connotes that there is no wound. The Torah wrote "wound" to teach that one is liable only for a scalding with a wound;

Ben Azai holds that "Keviyah" connotes that there is a wound. The Torah wrote "wound" to teach that Keviyah refers to a scalding without a wound.

Answer #2 (Rav Papa): To the contrary! Rebbi says that the Torah first discusses a scalding. He holds that "Keviyah" connotes that there is a wound. "Wound" teaches that Keviyah refers to a scalding without a wound;

Ben Azai says, the Torah first discusses a wound. He holds that "Keviyah" connotes that there is no wound; the Torah wrote "wound" to teach that one is liable only for a scalding with a wound.

The Tana'im argue about which was discussed first, i.e. the true meaning of the verse (after expounding it).

Answer #3: "Keviyah" connotes a scalding with or without a wound. They argue about a Klal (Keviyah) and Prat (wound) that are distant from each other.

Rebbi does not expound this like a Klal u'Frat;

Ben Azai expounds this like a Klal u'Frat.

Question: If so, according to Rebbi, what does "wound" teach? (Even without it, we include a scalding with or without a wound!)

Answer: It teaches that when there is also a wound, one pays for both.