Bava Kamma 174

אמר ליה לא זכתה התורה לאב אלא שבח נעורים בלבד איתיביה החובל בעבד עברי חייב בכולן חוץ מן השבת בזמן שהוא שלו אמר אביי מודה רב בשבת דמעשה ידיה עד שעת בגרות דאבוה הוי

— He replied: 'The Torah did not bestow upon the father [any right] save to the income of youth alone.' An objection was raised<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Lit., 'he objected to him.' The objector was evidently not R. Eleazar, as Abaye is the one who replies to the objection.] ');">¹</span>

איתיביה החובל בבנו גדול יתן לו מיד בבנו קטן יעשה לו סגולה החובל בבתו קטנה פטור ולא עוד אלא אחרים שחבלו בה חייבין ליתן לאביה ה"נ בשבת:

[from the following]: ONE WHO INJURES A HEBREW SLAVE IS SIMILARLY LIABLE FOR ALL OF THEM, WITH THE EXCEPTION HOWEVER OF LOSS OF TIME IF HE IS HIS OWN SLAVE!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then should the payment for Loss of Time in the case of a minor girl not go to her father to whom the hire for her labour would belong? ');">²</span> — Abaye replied: Rab surely agrees regarding the item of Loss of Time, as the work of her hands during the period preceding the age of womanhood<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which begins six months after puberty was reached at approximately the age of twelve; cf. Nid. 45b; 65a and Keth. 39a. ');">³</span>

ובבנו גדול יתן לו מיד ורמינהו החובל בבניו ובבנותיו של אחרים גדולים יתן להם מיד קטנים יעשה להם סגולה בבניו ובבנותיו שלו פטור

belongs to her father. A [further] objection was raised [from the following]: 'If one injures his son who has already come of age<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., usually over the age of thirteen; cf. Glos. s.v. Gadol. ');">⁴</span> he has to compensate him straight away, but if his son was still a minor<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., before the age of thirteen; v. Glos. s.v. Katon. ');">⁵</span>

אמרי לא קשיא כאן כשסמוכים על שלחנו כאן כשאין סמוכין על שלחנו

he must make for him a safe investment [out of the compensation money], while he who injures his minor daughter is exempt, and what is more, if others injure her they are liable to pay the compensation to her father'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Is this not against the view of Rab who stated that damages paid for injuring a minor girl would not go to her father?] ');">⁶</span> — The rulings here similarly refer to Loss of Time.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For which all agree that payment must be made to the father. ');">⁷</span>

במאי אוקימתא לקמייתא בשאין סמוכין על שלחנו אי הכי אימא סיפא החובל בבתו הקטנה פטור ולא עוד אלא אחרים שחבלו בה חייבין ליתן לאביה לדידה בעי למיתב לה דבעיא מזוני

Is it really a fact that in the case of a son who has already come of age the father has to compensate him straight away? [If so,] a contradiction could be pointed out [from the following:] 'If one injures the sons and daughters of others, if they have already come of age, he has to pay them straight away, but if they are still minors he should make for them a safe investment [out of the compensation money], whereas where the sons and daughters were his own, he would be exempt [altogether]'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Does the latter ruling not apply even where the sons and daughters had already come of age, in contradiction to the ruling stated in the former teaching?] ');">⁸</span> — It may, however, be said that there is no difficulty, as the ruling here [stating exemption] refers to a case where the children still reclined at the father's table,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., were maintained and provided by him with all their needs; cf. B.M. 12b. ');">⁹</span>

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>

כדאמר רבא בריה דרב עולא לא נצרכה אלא להעדפה ה"נ לא נצרכה אלא להעדפה

that a master may say to his slave, 'Work with me though I am not prepared to maintain you,' surely this applies only to a Canaanite slave to whom the master can say, 'Do your work during the day and in the evenings you can go out and look about for food,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Eg. where the work he performs is not worth the cost of his maintenance, v. Git. 12a.] ');">¹²</span> whereas in the case of a Hebrew slave in connection with whom it is written, Because he fareth well with thee,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XV, 16. ');">¹³</span>

במאי אוקימתא לבתרייתא בסמוכין על שלחנו גדולים יתן להם מיד קטנים יעשה להם סגולה אמאי לאביהם בעי למיתבי

implying 'with thee in food and with thee in drink',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He must share the same pleasures and comforts as the Master. Cf. Kid. 20a. ');">¹⁴</span> this could certainly not be maintained; how much the more so then in the case of his own daughter?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Why therefore should the compensation be paid to the father and not to her in a case where she has to maintain herself?] ');">¹⁵</span>

אמרי כי קא קפיד במידי דקא חסר במידי דאתא מעלמא לא קפיד

— As stated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keth. 43a. ');">¹⁶</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. ');">¹⁷</span>

והא מציאה דמעלמא קאתי להו וקא קפיד אמרי רווחא דקאתי להו מעלמא ולית להו צערא דגופייהו בגווה קפיד אבל חבלה דאית להו צערא דגופייהו ומעלמא קאתי להו לא קפיד

— It may, however, be said that the father would be particular only in a matter which would cause him a loss,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as if he would have to pay compensation where he himself injured them. ');">¹⁸</span> whereas in regard to a profit coming from outside<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As where others injured them and would have to pay compensation. ');">¹⁹</span>

והא התם דאית לה צערא דגופא ומעלמא קאתי לה וקא קפיד דקתני ולא עוד אלא (אפילו) אחרים שחבלו בה חייבין ליתן לאביה

he would not mind [it going to the children]. But what about a find which is similarly a profit coming from outside, and the father still is particular about it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. B.M. 12b. ');">²⁰</span> — It may be said that he is particular even about a profit which comes from outside provided no actual pain was caused to the children through it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as e.g., in the case of a find. ');">²¹</span>

אמרי התם דגברא קפדנא הוא דהא אין סמוכין על שלחנו אפילו במידי דאתי להו מעלמא קפיד הכא דלאו גברא קפדנא הוא דהא סמוכין על שלחנו כי קא קפיד במידי דקא חסר ליה במידי דאתי להו מעלמא לא קפיד

whereas in the matter of compensation for injury where the children suffered actual pain and where the profit comes from outside he does not mind. But what of the other case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in the former teaching. ');">²²</span> where the daughter suffered actual pain and where there was a profit coming from outside and the father nevertheless was particular about it as stated 'What is more, even others who injure her are liable to pay the compensation to her father'? — It may still be said that it was only in that case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in the former teaching. ');">²²</span>

מאי סגולה רב חסדא אמר ספר תורה רבה בר רב הונא אמר דיקלא דאכיל מיניה תמרי

where the father was an eccentric person who would not have his children at his table that he could be expected to care for the matter of profit coming even from outside, whereas in the case here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in the latter teaching. ');">²³</span> where he was not an eccentric person, as his children joined him at his table it is only regarding a matter which would cause him a loss that he would be particular, but he would not mind about a matter of profit coming from outside.

וכן אמר ריש לקיש לא זכתה תורה לאב אלא שבח נעורים בלבד ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו פציעה

What is meant by 'a safe investment'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.B. 52a. ');">²⁴</span> — R. Hisda said: [To buy] a scroll of the Law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Er. 64a. ');">²⁵</span>

פציעה ס"ד אפילו רבי אלעזר לא קמיבעיא ליה אלא חבלה

Rabbah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.B. 52: 'Raba'. ');">²⁶</span> son of R. Huna said: [To buy] a palm tree, from which he gets a profit in the shape of dates. Resh Lakish similarly said that the Torah did not bestow upon the father any right save to the income of youth alone. R. Johanan however said: 'Even regarding wounding.' How can you think about wounding?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would usually not decrease her pecuniary value. ');">²⁷</span> Even R. Eleazar did not raise a question<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 502. ');">²⁸</span> except regarding an injury