Two different suggestions are offered to explain according to which opinion the Mishna accords when it rules that there is payment for pain even when there is no financial damage. It depends on how a debate between Rebbi and Ben Azai about Shmot 21:25 is understood. How is pain assessed when there is financial damage? There are three different opinions regarding payments for growths that developed on account of the injury - does one pay only medical bills, also loss of employment, or both? The Gemara discusses the specific case in which they argue. Part of the debate between them centers around the double language used in the verse - v’rapo yerapei - which could be understood as including an additional case where medical costs are paid or perhaps coming to teach the doctors have a right to practice medicine and it does not conflict with our belief in God. When compensating for medical costs, the one who cause the injury cannot insist that he/she heal the injured or a doctor from afar or one who will provide services for free. The one who caused the injury can insist that the one injured use a doctor, as further complications may arise and then the injured person will demand more money in damages. Also, the one who was injured cannot insist on a set price, as they may save the money and not use it for healing, making the one who caused the damage look bad. From where do we derive that all four payments are relevant also when there are damages to pay as well? What are examples of cases where each of the four payments would be paid even if there was no financial compensation? Why is the loss of wages for one who cuts off a hand paid as if they were a cucumber watcher - what if the person had a higher-paying job? The loss of wage payment depends on what damage was done and what work the person is now capable of doing.