Musar for Bava Kamma 174:6

ואפי' למ"ד יכול הרב לומר לעבד עשה עמי ואיני זנך הני מילי בעבד כנעני דאמר ליה עביד עבידתא כולי יומא ולאורתא זיל סחר ואכול אבל עבד עברי דכתיב (דברים טו, טז) כי טוב לו עמך עמך במאכל עמך במשתה לא כל שכן בתו

whereas the ruling there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Stating liability. ');">¹⁰</span> deals with a case where they did not recline at his table. But how could you explain the former teaching to refer to a case where they did not recline at his table? For if so, read the concluding clause: 'Whereas he who injures his minor daughter is exempt, and what is more, even others who injure her are liable to pay the compensation to her father.' Why not pay her, since she has to maintain herself? For even according to the view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Git. 12a. ');">¹¹</span>

Explore musar for Bava Kamma 174:6. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.