A Burn for a Burn and the Payment for Suffering

"A burn for a burn" (Exodus 21:25): It was taught, Rabbi [Judah the Prince] says, the burn is stated first. Ben Azzai says, the bruise is stated first. About what do they disagree? Rabbi holds that "burn" implies one that has a bruise in it, so the Merciful One wrote "bruise" to reveal that the burn under discussion is one without a bruise. Ben Azzai says the bruise is stated first: "burn" implies one without a bruise, so the Merciful One wrote "bruise" to reveal that a burn with a bruise, yes [is liable], and if not, not. And they stand on the conclusion. Alternatively, all agree that "burn" implies one with or without a bruise, and here they disagree about a general and specific that are distant from one another. Rabbi holds that a general and specific distant from one another we do not interpret as general-and-specific; and if you ask why Rabbi needs "bruise, bruise," it is for additional money. Ben Azzai holds that a general and specific distant from one another we do interpret as general-and-specific. "Wound for wound" (written at hint 333). "A burn for a burn": if you say he wounded him and drew his blood, but it already said "wound for wound"; and if you say he made a bruise in him, but it already said "bruise for bruise." What then does "a burn for a burn" teach? Rather, he burned him on the sole of his foot without leaving a mark, or loaded stones on him and caused him suffering, or cast snow on him and chilled his head and caused him suffering -- this one gives him the value of his suffering. But if he was soft, delicate, and pampered, all the more is his suffering doubled; this is the pain spoken of in the Torah, "a burn for a burn."