Musar for Bava Kamma 174:9
אמרי כי קא קפיד במידי דקא חסר במידי דאתא מעלמא לא קפיד
— As stated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keth. 43a. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> [in another connection] by Raba the son of R. 'Ulla, that the ruling applies only to the surplus [of the amount of her earnings over the cost of maintenance], so also here in this case this ruling applies only to the surplus [of the amount of compensation over the cost of maintenance]. You have then explained the latter statement [that there is exemption in the case of his own children] as dealing with a case where the children reclined at his table. Why then [in the case of children of other persons] is it stated that 'if they had already come of age he has to pay them straight away, but if they were still minors he should make for them a safe investment [out of the compensation money]? Why should the compensation not be made to their father?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since they are maintained by him. ');"><sup>17</sup></span>