Bava Kamma 86A

חייב בכולן.

is liable to pay all of the 5 types of indemnity.

האי ״לא עשה בו חבורה״, היכי דמי? לאו כגון שהכהו על ידו וסופו לחזור? וקתני: חייב בכולן!

The Talmud explains: In this case of one who injured his parent but did not bruise him, what are the circumstances? Is it not a case where he struck him on his hand, and it will eventually return to its original health? And with regard to this case that Mishnah teaches: He is liable to pay all of the 5 types of indemnity. If so, this resolves Rabba’s dilemma.

אמרי: הכא במאי עסקינן ⁠– כגון שחירשו, ולא עשה בו חבורה. והאמר רבה: (החורש) [חרש] את אביו ⁠– נהרג, לפי שאי אפשר לחרישה בלא חבורה; טיפתא דדמא נפלה ליה באודניה!

The rabbis object and say: Here we are dealing with a case where he deafened his parent by striking him, but did not bruise him. Since his father’s hearing loss is permanent, he is liable to pay all 5 types of indemnity, and this is not relevant to Rabba’s dilemma. The Talmud objects: But doesn’t Rabba himself say: One who deafens his father is executed, even though no bruise is visible, because it is impossible for deafening to occur without a bruise? It is certain that a drop of blood fell into his ear from the blow, even if it is not visible from the outside.

אלא הכא במאי עסקינן ⁠– כגון שגילחו. גילחו ⁠– מהדר הדר, והיינו בעיין!

Rather, it must be that here we are dealing with a case where he shaved his father’s hair without causing a bruise. In a case where he shaved him, his hair will return, and this is an example of our dilemma, i.e., of an injury to a limb that will return to its original health. If so, this resolves Rabba’s dilemma.

אמרי: הכא במאי עסקינן ⁠– כגון שסכו נשא, דלא הדר.

The rabbis object and say: It is possible that here we are dealing with a case where he smeared his father with a depilatory agent [nasha] that caused his hair to fall out, so that his hair will not return.