Jewish audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be מסכת בבא קמא דף פ"ז. We will start on דף פ"ו עמוד ב' in the last line of the עמוד. And the גמרא here is in the middle of the סוגיא of the opinion of רבי יהודה that says that a סומא doesn't have בושת, which means that if a blind person embarrasses somebody, he is not obligated to pay for the embarrassment. And the גמרא brought a ברייתא where רבי יהודה also says that he is also פטור from גלות, if he kills somebody unintentionally, where normally the person who did that would have to go to ערי מקלט, but a blind person according to רבי יהודה is פטור. He is also פטור from חייבי מלקיות, if he did an עבירה that the punishment would be 39 lashes, so רבי יהודה says he is פטור. He is also פטור from חייבי מיתות בית דין, that if he did something that if a בית דין would kill him, that he is חייב capital punishment, nevertheless he is פטור. And the גמרא brought before from which פסוקים רבי יהודה learns out this דין. And now the גמרא continues, תניא אידך, we learn in another ברייתא, רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה says, סומא אין לו בושת, סומא doesn't have בושת, that a blind person doesn't have to pay if he embarrasses somebody, וכן היה רבי יהודה פוטרו מכל דינים שבתורה, so did רבי יהודה also make him פטור from all the judgments of the תורה. In other words, concerning anything which has to do with דינים, with monetary things, רבי יהודה says that a סומא is פטור. And the

גמרא says מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה, what is the reason of רבי יהודה? So it says, אמר קרא, the פסוק says, ושפטו העדה בין המכה ובין גואל הדם, that the עדה which is the community, meaning the בית דין, should judge between the murderer and between the one that's going to take revenge for the blood, so they should judge על המשפטים האלה, on these judgments. So he learns out, כל שישנו במכה ובגואל הדם, any person who is included in the דין of murder and in the דין of גואל הדם, ישנו במשפטים, so he is also included in other משפטים. Since the תורה mentions מכה and גואל הדם together with משפטים, with the general word משפטים which refers to all דינים, so we learn out that if somebody is included in the דין of murderer and גואל הדם, he is also included into other דינים of משפטים. But כל שאינו במכה ובגואל הדם, a person who is not included in the דין of a murderer, who would not get killed even if he killed somebody, and is not included in the דין of גואל הדם, אינו במשפטים, so he is not included in any משפטים. And therefore רבי יהודה says that a סומא, since we said before that we learned out from פסוקים that a blind person is פטור from חייבי מיתות בית דין, he is also פטור from גלות, so therefore he is also פטור from the other משפטים. Since he is not included in מכה and גואל הדם, he is also not included in other משפטים. But

תוספות ask a קושיא: If we learn out from this פסוק that a blind person is פטור from all דינים, and we learned it out because we compared to the דין of רוצח, why did he need a special פסוק to show that he is פטור from בושת? We learned earlier in the גמרא that according to רבי יהודה, how does he know that a blind person doesn't pay for embarrassment? Because we learn out a גזירה שוה, עינך עינך, from עדים זוממין. But now that we're saying that he is פטור from all דינים, and we learned that out from the פסוק על המשפטים האלה, so why does he need a special פסוק to teach us that he is פטור from בושת? And תוספות answers that באמת לכתחילה, רבי יהודה only thought he was פטור from בושת, and he learned that out from the פסוק עינך עינך. But later on, when he learned out from this פסוק על המשפטים האלה, that he is פטור from all דינים, so he had חרטה, he also changed his mind from the לימוד that he learned out concerning בושת, and he טאקע does not need the פסוק of עינך עינך to teach you that he is פטור from בושת, because now that he knows that he is פטור from all דינים, he is automatically פטור from בושת without that extra לימוד that he is פטור from בושת. Another תירוץ that תוספות gives is that he has to have this דרש of עינך עינך concerning בושת, because if not for that, then when it would come to teach us that a סומא is פטור from גלות, as the גמרא said before we learn it out from the פסוק בלא ראות, that comes to include a blind person, that רבי יהודה would not know that that's the פשט in the פסוק. That רבי יהודה would think that it is like רב מאיר says, because as we learned before, רב מאיר learns from that פסוק בלא ראות that it comes to include a blind person. So how does רבי יהודה know that it comes to exclude? Because he has the דרש of עינך עינך, to teach us that he is פטור from בושת, so because of that, he also concerning גלות said that he is פטור from גלות. But if not for his דרש of עינך עינך concerning בושת, he would not know that by גלות he is also be פטור. So therefore, even though רבי יהודה learns out that a סומא is פטור from all דינים, nevertheless he needs this דרשה of עיניך עיניך concerning בושת, because that is the only way he knows that concerning גלות, a סומא is פטור. Then the

גמרא continues, תניא אידך, we learned in another ברייתא, רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה says, סומא אין לו בושת, that a blind person doesn't pay if he embarrasses somebody. וכן היה רבי יהודה פוטרו מכל מצות האמורות בתורה. רבי יהודה also made him פטור from all the מצות of the תורה. ואמר רב שישא בריה דרב אידי, רב שישא the son of רב אידי said, מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה, what is the reason of רבי יהודה that says that a blind person is פטור from performing all the מצות, not only the דינים when it comes to monetary דינים, concerning all מצות of the תורה רבי יהודה holds that a blind person is פטור? Because אמר קרא, the פסוק says, ואלה המצות החוקים והמשפטים, these are the מצות and the חוקים and the משפטים, which are different titles for מצות. But we know that the title משפטים refers to דיני ממונות, to מצות that deal with monetary things. And since the פסוק compares מצות, חוקים to משפטים, so we say כל שישנו במשפטים, anybody who is included in the דין of משפטים, that the monetary דינים apply to him, so ישנו במצות וחוקים, so he is in the category of having to keep all the commandments and all the חוקים. וכל שאינו במשפטים, but if somebody is not included in the דין of משפטים, which one of them is a blind person, as we said before we learn it out from the דין of מכה, so a person like that אינו במצות וחוקים, he is also not included in the מצות and חוקים, which means he doesn't have to keep any מצות and any חוקים. So that's how רבי יהודה know that a blind person is פטור from all the מצות of the תורה. But תוספות ask a קשיא that this גמרא here seems to contradict what the גמרא says in מגילה, because in מגילה דף כ״ד ע״א it says that רבי יהודה says that כל שלא ראה מאורות מימיו לא יפרוס על שמע, and anybody who never saw light in his lifetime, which means he was blind from birth, cannot be פורס על שמע. But in this גמרא it says that a blind person is בכלל פטור from all the מצות, even if he was once with sight and later he became blind, but since he is blind now, רבי יהודה says he is פטור from all the מצות. So certainly he cannot be פורס על שמע. So how can he say over there that only if he did not see light ever in his life, that's when he cannot be פורס על שמע, which is משמע only concerning שמע the דין is so, and also only if he was blind from birth, when here it says that בכלל a blind person according to רבי יהודה is פטור from all the מצות of the תורה? So תוספות says that it comes out that even according to רבי יהודה that says that he is פטור from all the מצות, but nevertheless מדרבנן he is חייב. It's only that he is פטור מדאורייתא. He learns it out from the פסוק אלה המצות החוקים והמשפטים, that is a פסוק in the תורה. But מדרבנן, even רבי יהודה admits that a blind person is חייב to do the מצות. And תוספות explains the difference between a blind person according to רבי יהודה and a woman. Why is it that a woman that מדאורייתא is פטור from מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, from those מצות that have a time limit, she is exempt, and nevertheless the חכמים did not say that מדרבנן she should have to do, so why should we say that a blind person that is פטור from the מצות מדאורייתא, the רבנן did say that he is obligated to do them? So תוספות says because a woman, even though she is exempt from certain מצות, but nevertheless she is חייב in other מצות. She is חייב to do the מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא, those positive מצות which do not have a time limit and not dependent on time, she is also obligated to keep all the לא תעשה, all the negative מצות. While a blind person is פטור from everything. So if the רבנן would not obligate this blind person to do the מצות at least מדרבנן, then he would be להבדיל like a גוי, he has no מצות to do. So therefore, the רבנן said that he has to do it מדרבנן. And that's what רבי יהודה meant במסכתא מגילה, that a person who never saw, was blind from birth, even מדרבנן he cannot be פורס על שמע. But other מצות, he would be חייב מדרבנן. So from תוספות we see that תוספות learns that according to רבי יהודה a blind person is פטור from all the מצות, including מצות לא תעשה. There are some that hold that even according to רבי יהודה, a סומא is only פטור from מצות עשה, from positive מצות. But מצות לא תעשה, the negative מצות, he is מחוייב. He's not allowed to do all those things which a ייד is not allowed to do. But from תוספות it seems that תוספות learns that a סומא according to רבי יהודה is פטור even from מצות לא תעשה, because the reason תוספות says that מדרבנן he is חייב is because otherwise he would be like a גוי. But if the פשט is that מצות לא תעשה he is חייב, then he's not like a גוי. So therefore it seems that תוספות learns that even the מצות לא תעשה a סומא is פטור according to רבי יהודה. But according to that, there is still one thing that we have to understand And if he is פטור even from מצות לא תעשה, then why is he obligated to listen to the חכמים? The whole reason why we are obligated to do what the חכמים tell us is because the תורה says לא תסור, there's a פסוק in the תורה that says you should not turn away from what the חכמים tell you ימין ושמאל, right or left, and therefore we are obligated to listen to the חכמים. But if a person is not obligated to any מצות of the תורה, so he's also not obligated to listen to the מצוה of לא תסור. He's not included in this מצוה of not turning away from the words of the חכמים. So it would seem that he is not obligated to do what the חכמים say. So therefore, we need some research that how can תוספות say that מדרבנן he would be חייב to do all the מצות when he has no obligation of לא תסור of listening to the חכמים. Then the גמרא continues:

אמר רב יוסף, רב יוסף said, מריש הוה אמינא, in the beginning, I thought that מאן דאמר הלכה כרבי יהודה, anybody who will say that the הלכה is like רבי יהודה, דאמר that he says that סומא פטור מן המצות, the blind person is פטור from doing the מצות, עבדינא יומא טבא לרבנן, I would have made a יום טוב for the רבנן, I would make a big party for the רבנן. מאי טעמא, what is the reason? דלא מפקדינא וקא עבדינא מצות, that I am not obligated and nevertheless I do מצות. Because, as we know, רב יוסף was blind, and that's what he said, that if I find out that the הלכה is like רבי יהודה, that would mean that I am פטור from the מצות. So I would make a big יום טוב to the חכמים because then I would be doing more than is expected of me. Since I don't have to do the מצות and nevertheless I do it, so I'm doing more than expected, so I'm very happy that I'm able to do the will of השם even though I am not obligated. והשתא דשמעית להא דרבי חנינא, but now that I heard what רבי חנינא said, דאמר רבי חנינא, because רבי חנינא said, גדול המצווה ועושה ממי שאינו מצווה ועושה, that it's greater if somebody is commanded and he does the מצות rather than someone who is not commanded and does the מצות. So now, מאן דאמר דאין הלכה כרבי יהודה, if someone will tell me that הלכה is not like רבי יהודה, עבדינא יומא טבא לרבנן, I would make a big יום טוב to the רבנן. מאי טעמא, what is the reason? דכי מפקדינא אית לי אגרא טפי, because if I am obligated, I have more reward. If the הלכה is like רבי יהודה, so then I am doing it not being obligated, so I am an אינו מצווה ועושה, someone who is not commanded and does, so I will not get as great rewards. But since someone who is commanded and he does gets greater reward, so I want to be commanded. So if I will hear that הלכה is not like רבי יהודה and I am obligated to do the מצות, so then I would be happier and that's when I would make a big סעודה for the חכמים. And now we

learn the משנה. The משנה says: זה חומר באדם מבשור, this is a strictness in the case of a person causing damage to another person over the case where an ox would cause damage to another person. Because we know if an ox causes damage to a person, so the owner of the ox is obligated to pay. So too if a person causes damage to another person, the one that made the damage is obligated to pay, but there is a חומרא in אדם over the case of שור, שהאדם משלם נזק, צער, ריפוי, שבת ובושת. If a person injures another person, so he has to pay, first of all, for the damage, meaning for the depreciation of the value of the person, that's נזק. Then he has to pay צער, that is for the pain. ריפוי is for the medical expenses. שבת is for the loss of time that he couldn't work. And for the בושת, for the embarrassment. ומשלם דמי ולדות, and if he injured a woman that was pregnant and because of that she miscarried and lost the children, so then he has to pay for that too. As it says in פרשת משפטים, קפיטל כ״א, פסוק כ״ב, it says, וכי ינצו אנשים, if people will argue, ונגפו אשה הרה, and they kicked, they pushed a pregnant woman, ויצאו ילדיה, and her children will go out, ולא יהיה אסון, and there will be no tragedy, which means she will not die, the only thing that was there is the loss of her children, ענוש יענש, he should be punished, כאשר ישית עליו בעל האשה, like the husband of the wife will put on him, ונתן בפללים, he should be put into court, which means it should be taken to בית דין, and the בית דין will tell him how much to pay. So from here we see that if he causes her to miscarry, he has to pay the value of the children. But this all applies if a person causes damage to another person. But בשור, if the damage is done through an ox, אינו משלם אלא נזק, so the owner of the ox only pays for the נזק, for the damage itself, for the depreciation. But he doesn't have to pay for צער or ריפוי or שבת and בושת. And also פטור מדמי ולדות, the owner of the ox is פטור to pay for the children if the ox gored a pregnant woman and then she miscarried, the owner of the ox does not pay דמי ולדות. As we learn it out from the פסוק where it says וכי ינצו אנשים, if people will argue and then one of them will push this pregnant woman. So we say אנשים ולא שוורים. only people, but not oxen. So if an ox gores a pregnant woman, the owner of the ox is פטור פון דמי ולדות. So here we see a חומרא, a strictness in the דין of אדם, if a person injures somebody else, over the case if a שור, an ox belonging to somebody, injures somebody else. Then the משנה continues:

המכה אביו ואמו, if someone hits his father or his mother, ולא עשה בהם חבורה, and he didn't make a wound, which means it didn't bleed, which is a case that the person who did it is not חייב מיתה, he doesn't deserve death penalty, because we know that if a person hits his father or his mother and he makes in them a חבורה, then he is חייב מיתה, he has to get killed. But here we're talking in a case where he hit them, but he didn't make a חבורה, so therefore he will not get killed for it. או החובל בחבירו ביום הכיפורים, if someone makes a חבורה, a wound in his friend on יום כיפור, and again he would not get killed for it. If he would do it on שבת, and the דין on שבת is that if you make a חבורה in something, in a person or an animal, you are חייב מיתה, because it's one of the מלאכות. But since he did it on יום כיפור, and on יום כיפור there is no מיתת בית דין. On יום כיפור, if a person does a מלאכה, does not get killed by the בית דין. So in these cases, חייב בכולן. So the person is חייב in all the things. If he would do it in such a way that he would be חייב מיתה, then he would be פטור from all the payments, because we have a דין called קם ליה בדרבה מיניה, that if you do something that for that act you get מיתה and also you're obligated to pay money, so the דין is you only get מיתה and you don't pay. But if it was done in such a way that there is no חיוב מיתה, so then you do have to pay. So that's what the משנה says, that if the son hit his father or his mother in a way which he is not חייב מיתה, so then he has to pay for all the things that a regular person would have to pay when he injures somebody. He has to pay everything: נזק, צער, ריפוי, שבת, and בושת. And so too, if somebody makes a חבורה in somebody else on יום כיפור, so then still he has to pay for everything because he would not be חייב מיתה. Then the משנה says:

החובל בעבד עברי, if someone makes a חבלה, a חבורה, he injures a Jewish slave, חייב בכולן, so he has to pay everything, because he is a regular איד. An עבד עברי is not considered property of his master; he is considered like a worker to his master. So therefore, if someone injures him, so that person has to pay as he would have injured any other איד, which means he has to pay נזק, צער, ריפוי, שבת, and בושת. חוץ מן השבת בזמן שהוא שלו, except if this עבד belongs to him, in other words, the master himself hits his עבד עברי, then he doesn't have to pay for loss of time. Because since he works for him, so then the loss of time is the loss for the owner himself, so therefore if the owner is the one that made the injury, he is פטור from paying for loss of time. Then the משנה continues: החובל בעבד כנעני של אחרים, if somebody injures a גויישע slave that belongs to someone else, חייב בכולן, he has to pay everything. He has to pay נזק, צער, ריפוי, שבת, and בושת, because this דין applies even to an עבד כנעני. But obviously he would have to pay it to the master. רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה says, אין לעבדים בושת, that by an עבד there is no דין of embarrassment, so you would not have to pay בושת. Then the משנה says: חרש שוטה וקטן, a deaf-mute, or a שוטה, which is a person who is not normal, an idiot, or a קטן, that is a child under בר מצוה, פגיעתן רעה, to meet up with them would be bad. In other words, to have dealings with them is bad, because he could only lose and never get anything for it. החובל בהם, because if someone hurts them, חייב, he has to pay. והם שחבלו באחרים, but if they hurt somebody else, פטורין, they are פטור. So you could never get your money back if you get hurt from them; on the other hand, if you hurt them, you have to pay them. So therefore it is best to stay away from them, not to meet up with them. Then it says: העבד והאשה פגיעתן רעה, so too, a גויישע slave or a married woman, it's also bad to meet up with them, because החובל בהם חייב, if someone hurts them, you are חייב. והם שחבלו באחרים, but they, if they hurt somebody else, פטורין, they are פטור. And the reason is because they don't have any money. The rule is that מה שקנה עבד קנה רבו, whatever the עבד owns is really owned by his master, so he doesn't have any property, any money to pay with. And the same we have a rule that מה שקנתה אשה קנה בעלה, that whatever a woman owns really belongs to her husband. There are just different forms of the way the husband owns. Certain things really the principal belongs to her and he just eats the פירות, get the profit from it, but whatever it is, while she is married, it is not in her רשות, so she doesn't have anything from which to pay for the damage that she caused. So therefore it is best to stay away from them, because you can only bring you to pay and never get paid from them. But, אבל the משנה says, משלמין לאחר זמן, but later on they would have to pay. For instance, if נתגרשה האשה, if the woman got divorced, so now she has her own money, או נשתחרר העבד, if the slave became free, and the דין is that if an עבד כנעני becomes free, he automatically becomes a ייד. So now he's a regular ייד, and since he's a free man, he's able to own his own money.

חייבים לשלם. So then they have to pay for the damage that they did while they were married or while he was a slave. Then the משנה continues, המכה אביו ואמו, if someone hits his father or his mother, ועשה בהם חבורה, and he did make a חבורה, or he did make it bleed, so then he is חייב מיתה, he gets killed for that, or החובל בחבירו בשבת, if someone makes a חבורה in his friend, an injury in his friend on שבת, and it was bleeding, so then the דין is that he's also חייב מיתה because it is a מלאכה, so פטור מכולם. So in that case he will be פטור from all. He don't pay any money for any of the five things mentioned before. מפני שהוא נידון בנפשו, because he is judged with his life. Because he would get death penalty, so then he is פטור from any payment. והחובל בעבד כנעני שלו, פטור מכולם. A person injures his own עבד כנעני, he is פטור from everything. Since the עבד כנעני belongs to him, so it's like his property, so it's like he brought a damage to himself. So definitely he is פטור from everything. He doesn't pay, not נזק, not צער, not ריפוי, not שבת, not בושת. But

תוספות says that how can we say that he is פטור from paying ריפוי, he is פטור from curing him, paying his medical expenses, when we learned in מסכת גיטין דף י"ב, it says that if someone chopped off the hand of someone else's עבד, so he has to pay שבתו ורפואתו לרבו. He has to pay for the loss of time that he couldn't work and for his medical expenses to his master. And the גמרא asks a קשיא, מילא when we say he has to pay for the loss of time to his master because he would have worked for his master, but why should he have to pay the medical expenses to his master? Shouldn't he give it to him because he has to be cured? And the גמרא answers that what we mean goes to the master if it's extra. For instance, if they estimated that it would take five days to cure him and they did something special, they used a different drug and he was cured in three days, so that extra money goes to his master. Whatever he needs actually to cure, so that goes to him because he has to get cured, the extra money goes to the master. So לכאורה we see clearly from there that when it comes to cure, it is an obligation for the עבד to be cured. So just like if someone else hurt the עבד, he has to cure him and pay the medical expenses to the עבד, so if he injured his own עבד, he should also have to pay the medical expenses of his own עבד. So why does it say here that he is פטור from everything, which seems to include also ריפוי? And תוספות answers that אין הכי נמי, this is what our משנה means, too. That what he needs to get cured, the master has to give him. And it says in the משנה פטור מכולם, he's פטור from everything including ריפוי, that means only the extra. That if really it should have taken five days for him to get cured, which would have cost a certain amount of money, they did something that took less, and it saved some money, so that extra money he doesn't have to give to the עבד, even though if it wouldn't have been an עבד, he would have to give him the amount of money that we estimate he needs, but that extra, in this case, he doesn't have to give him, he keeps. But then תוספות asks a קשיא, according to that, the משנה tells us clearly that the master doesn't have to give him that difference between how much it cost actually to cure him and how much it was estimated. So then if so, what is the חידוש of the גמרא there? The גמרא there tells us that this extra money doesn't go to the עבד, goes to the master, so it's a חידוש of רבי יוחנן, it's a clear משנה here! That's actually what our משנה is saying! That that difference belongs to the master. Because the משנה says he is פטור from giving it to his עבד, in other words, it belongs to the master. So it's self-understood if someone else would injure the עבד, so that difference would go to the master. So therefore תוספות says that we could make a difference between someone else injuring an עבד or the master himself injuring the עבד. If someone else injures the עבד, אז טאקע he has to pay for the ריפוי, he has to pay for the curing, and the amount that is needed actually to cure him would have to go to the עבד. But if the master himself injures his עבד, maybe there, he טאקע doesn't have to pay at all to cure him. Since it's his עבד, so he is זוכה, he owns the whole עבד, so maybe if he doesn't want to cure him, he doesn't have to cure him. And therefore it's possible that when it says here, פטור מכולם, he's פטור from everything, which includes ריפוי, maybe it טאקע means that he is פטור from any kind of ריפוי, that he doesn't have to cure him at all if he doesn't want. Now

we'll learn the גמרא. בעי מיניה רבי אלעזר מרב, רבי אלעזר asked a בעיא, a question of רב, החובל בבת קטנה של אחרים, חבלה למי? If someone injures a daughter of somebody else and she is still a קטנה, she is still under 12 years of age and she doesn't have the סימנים, she didn't bring those signs that would turn into an adult, חבלה למי, who gets the money for the that injury. And the גמרא explains the reason of the question, because מי אמרינן, and do we say, כיון דאקני ליה רחמנא שבח נעורים לאב, since the תורה gave over any profit that a daughter in her youth brings in, goes to the father, so then חבלה נמי דאבוה הוי? So, the money that's supposed to be paid for the injury also should go to the father. מאי טעמא? What is the reason? דהא אפחתה מכספה, because he made her worth less than her value was before, since at this moment, so to speak, she belongs to her father. So, therefore, any depreciation or anything that comes along with an injury also should go to the father. או דילמא, or maybe שבח נעורים הוא דאקני ליה רחמנא, only the profit that comes in at the time of her youth, that's what the תורה gave him. For instance, he has a right to collect the money for the קידושין that is given to her. If she marries, and the person who marries her gives her money as קידושין, that goes to the father, for instance. Or if she works and brings in money, so that money goes to the father. And the reason is because אי בעי למימסרה למוכה שחין מצי מסר. If he wants, he has a right to marry her off to whoever he wants. The דין is that a person has a right to marry off his daughter while she's still a קטנה or a נערה, as the פסוק says, as את בתי נתתי לאיש הזה, that a man says, "I gave my daughter to this man." So, it is up to the father to give his daughter to whoever he wants. And if he would want, he could give her over to somebody that is a מוכה שחין, a person who is full of leprosy. So, it's up to him to give to whoever he wants, as a special דין the תורה said, and therefore he could collect the money for the קידושין. And the same applies to the money for her labor, that if she works, the money goes to him, because he has a right over her labor. אבל חבלה, but the money that comes in for the injury that was done to her, כיון דאי בעי מיחבל בה לא מצי חביל, since if he would want to have her injured, he couldn't do it. Not only doesn't he have a right over it, but if he would do it, he would do an עבירה, because you're not allowed to hurt a ייד. And since she is a יידישע woman, even though she is his daughter, he is not allowed to hurt her. We learn it out from the פסוק לא יוסיף פן יוסיף, so we know from there that you're not allowed to hit any Jewish person. So, he would have no right to injure her. Now, since he has no right over her injury, לא קני ליה רחמנא, maybe the תורה did not give over to him the right over the money that comes in through an injury. Something he has a right over, since he has a right to give her to work to somebody, he has a right to marry her off, so the profit that comes in through that act goes to him. But something he has no right to do, so any money that that brings in should not go to him. And therefore it's a possibility that the money for the חבלה does not go to the father. And that is the גמרא's question: that if someone injures a girl, a קטנה, and he has to pay for the חבלה, does it go to the father, or does it not go to the father, but it goes to the daughter? Now, the whole question here was based, since we know that generally כל שבח נעורים לאביה, any profit that comes in at the time of her youth goes to the father, so the question is, why is it? And therefore, is this also included or not? Where do we know this general דין that any profit that she brings in in her youth goes to the father? So, רש״י says, because we learn it out from a פסוק. The פסוק says בנעוריה בית אביה. בנעוריה means in the time when she is a נערה, in the time of her youth. בית אביה is the house of her father. So, from here we learn out כל שבח נעורים לאביה, that any שבח, any profit that comes in at the time of her נעורים, of her youth, goes to the father. But

תוספות says that we see that in the first פרק of קידושין דף ג, and also in אלו נערות, which is in כתובות דף מ, there the גמרא says that this פסוק only refers to הפרת נדרים, that the father has the right to nullify all the vows that his daughter made while she is in her youth, but we do not learn out from here to anything else. So, how can רש״י say that the reason that we say that all the profit of a נערה would go to her father is learned out from this פסוק, when the גמרא says clearly that this פסוק only refers to הפרת נדרים? And therefore תוספות says that the reason we always say in the גמרא that all the profit that a girl brings in in her youth goes to the father, it is only an expression we use of שבח נעורים לאביה, but we do not refer to this פסוק. The reason is if she finds a מציאה, it also goes to her father, the גמרא says it's משום איבה, is because of hatred, that if the דין would be that the מציאה that she finds goes to her, and her father might be upset about that, and because of that, he would marry her off to a מנוול or מוכה שחין, to a bad person, a person who is full of leprosy. And therefore, in order for him to marry her off to a good person, that's why the חכמים said that anything that she finds goes to her father. That is the reason why the דין is that שבח נעורים לאביה. And that is the גמרא's question over here, too. When it comes to a חבלה, when it comes to getting money for an injury that was done to her, so here there is no such thing as איבה. Here even if the דין would be that it goes to her, there is no סברא to say that because of that, he would be upset, the father would be upset, and because of that marry her off to a מנוול ומוכה שחין. So the question is, therefore, there is no reason why the money should go to the father. Or do we say, nevertheless, since it caused her a depreciation in value, so still it goes to the father? And that's the גמרא's שאלה, whether for חבלה you pay to the father or you pay to her. The גמרא says אמר ליה, so he said to him, לא זכתה תורה לאב אלא שבח נעורים בלבד. That the תורה only gave over to the father the right over the profit that she brings in into the time of her youth, but not for the חבלה. And therefore he פסקנ'ט that if someone makes a חבלה in a girl that's a קטנה, the money is given to the girl herself and not to the father. Then the גמרא says איתיביה, I would ask you a קשיא: We learned in our משנה, החובל בעבד עברי חייב בכולן חוץ מן השבת בזמן שהוא שלו. If someone injures an עבד עברי, a Jewish slave, so he has to pay for all five things except if the עבד is his own, he's working for him, then the master, if he's the one that did the injury, he is פטור from paying for lost time. So what do we see from here? That since the משנה says that if it's his own עבד, so then he is פטור for paying for lost time, so from that we understand that if he is someone else's עבד, where we say you have to pay for all five things, who do you give the שבת to? To his master. Since his work belongs to his master, so therefore you have to give the שבת to his master, because his master owns, so to speak, for that time, his מעשה ידיו, his money that comes in from work. So if so, in the case of a father and a daughter, since the daughter's מעשה ידיה, which means the money that she brings in for her work, goes to the father, so then if someone damages her, and has to pay her, so the money that he has to pay her should also go to the father. Just like the case of the עבד. Since the מעשה ידים, the work belongs to his master, so when you pay for loss of that work, you pay for the master, so, too, in the case of a daughter, since her work belongs to her father, so then if you pay for damage that's done to her and she has a loss of time, you should have to pay to her father, too. So how did he say that only regular profit goes to the father, but when you pay for an injury, you give it to her, not to the father? And the גמרא answers, אמר אביי,

אביי said, מודה רב בשבת, that רב is מודה that when it comes to pay שבת for loss of time, the מעשה ידיה, for her work, for loss of time that she had that she couldn't work, עד שעת בגרות, up to the time when she becomes a בוגרת, דאבוה הוי, that that does go to the father. When he said that you pay for the חבלה to her, not to the father, he meant everything except the שבת, except the loss of time. But when it comes to pay for loss of time, which means for loss of work, so that goes to the father, for the loss of work that she couldn't do up to the time she becomes a בוגרת. Because the דין is that a daughter's מעשה ידיה, the work that she does belongs to her father is only up to the time she becomes a בוגרת. And a בוגרת is a half a year after she becomes a נערה. Usually a girl becomes a נערה when she becomes 12. For the next half a year she is considered a נערה, and when she's 12 and a half, she's considered a בוגרת. So the דין is that the work that she does belongs to her father up to the time when she's a בוגרת. After she's a בוגרת, then she's on her own. And that's what he says here, that any loss of time that was caused through this injury and she couldn't work, so anything, the time she couldn't work up to the time she's a בוגרת, that definitely goes to the father, because the work belongs to the father. But he said that the money given for her injury goes to her, not to the father, that was referred to all other things, to the נזק, and to the צער, and to the ריפוי, and to the בושת. Then the גמרא says, איתיביה, I would ask you a קשיא: We

learned in a ברייתא, החובל בבנו גדול, if someone injures his son that is a גדול, that is of age, meaning an adult, after בר מצוה, after 13 years old, יתן לו מיד, so you have to pay him right away. בבנו קטן, if he injures his own son that he's still a קטן, יעשה לו סגולה, he should take the money that he has to pay and make out of it a safe investment. And the גמרא later on will explain what that means. And then it continues in the ברייתא, החובל בבתו קטנה, if someone injures his daughter while she's a קטנה, פטור, he is פטור. ולא עוד, and not only that, אלא אחרים שחבלו בה, if others injured her, חייבין ליתן לאביה, they have to give to the father. So this seems to contradict what we said before. Before we said that only profit that she makes goes to the father, but when you pay for the injury, that goes to her, and here it says clearly the ברייתא that if someone injures a daughter, a קטנה, has to pay to her father. The גמרא says הכא נמי בשבת. Here too, what does the ברייתא mean? שבת. That the money for lost time, that goes to the father. And אביי said before that רבא admits in the case of שבת it goes to the father. But concerning all other four things, the ברייתא doesn't speak about, therefore רבא is able to hold that that goes to her. And now, since we have mentioned this ברייתא, the גמרא is going to explain the ברייתא, speak about it further. It said in the ברייתא, ובבניו גדולים יתן להם מיד, that if you injure your son that's a גדול already, you have to pay him right away. The גמרא says ורמינהו, I will ask you a קשיא. We learned a ברייתא, החובל בבניו ובבנותיו של אחרים, if someone injures sons or daughters of somebody else, גדולים, if they are גדולים, already over age, יתן להם מיד, you must pay right away. קטנים, if they are still small, they're under age, יעשה להם סגולה, you make a safe investment for them. ובבניו ובבנותיו שלו, if you cause injury to your own children, your own sons or daughters, פטור, he is פטור. And here it seems that you're פטור in all cases, whether the son is a גדול or a קטן. So this seems to contradict the other ברייתא, because in the previous ברייתא it says that if you cause an injury to your son that's a גדול, you have to pay him right away. And here it says that if you cause injury to your children, you are פטור from paying, and this obviously means even if they are גדולים. Because the first part of the ברייתא says, when it speaks about injuring someone else's children, it makes a difference between גדולים and קטנים. Then it says concerning one's own children, you're פטור. Obviously it means whether they are גדולים or קטנים. So it says clearly that even if the children are גדולים, you are פטור from paying. So this contradicts the previous ברייתא where it says that if the child is a גדול, you have to pay him right away. The

גמרא says אמרי, I will tell you, לא קשיא, it's not a קשיא. כאן כשסמוכים על שולחנו. Here where it says that you are פטור from paying if you injure your children, even if they are גדולים, is in a case where they rely on your table, they sit by your table, meaning to say that the father supports them. Since he supports them, so then if he injures them, he doesn't have to pay at all. כאן, but here where it says that if you injure your son if it's a גדול, you have to pay right away, כשאין סמוכין על שולחנו, that's a case where they are not around his table, meaning they're not supported by him. So since he doesn't support them, the דין is that if he is a גדול, you must pay right away. Then the גמרא continues, let's analyze. ומאי אוקימתא לברייתא, in which case did you establish the first ברייתא, where it says that if he is a בן גדול, you do have to pay him? כשאין סמוכין על שולחנו, in a case where he doesn't sit around your table, meaning if you do not support him. אי הכי, if that's the case, אימא סיפא, look at the end of that same ברייתא. There it says, החובל בבתו קטנה, if you injure your daughter that's a קטנה, פטור, you are פטור from paying, ולא עוד, not only that, אלא אחרים שחבלו בה, if others injured her, חייבין ליתן לאביה, they have to give the money to her father. Now since we said that that ברייתא is speaking in a case where the child does not rely on his father, which means the father does not support the child, and in continuation to that it speaks about his daughter, so obviously we're also talking about a daughter that is not supported by her father. Now if she is not supported by the father, so why is the דין that if a person injures her, he has to pay to her father? תיהדר לדידה, doesn't he have to give her? דהא בעיא מזוני, doesn't she have to be supported? Since she is not supported by the father, in a case like that, who supports her? She supports herself, which means she works, and the money she makes goes to her father. In other words, this דין that if a girl works while she's a קטנה or a נערה, all the money she makes goes to her father, is only if she is supported by the father. But if she is not supported by her father, then obviously the money she makes goes to herself. And since this ברייתא is speaking in a case where the children are not supported by the father, so this girl is not supported by her father either. So any money she makes goes to her. So in that case, if she is injured, the money should also go to her. Why does the ברייתא say the money goes to the father? ואפילו למאן דאמר, even according to the one that holds שיכול הרב לומר לעבד, that a master is allowed to say to his עבד כנעני, to his גויישע עבד, עשה עמי ואיני זנך, work with me, work for me, and I still will not support you. There is a מחלוקת in גמרא whether a master could say that. One opinion is that the master has to support his עבד, and that is the reason why whatever the עבד makes goes to the master. But if the master

doesn't want to support his עבד, then the profit that the master the עבד will make from his work will go to him. But he cannot say to him, work for me, your money should go to me, and nevertheless I will not support you. But one מאן דאמר holds that a master could say that, that you work for me, and that will go to me the money, and as far as support, I will not won't support you either. But we could say maybe that the same thing applies to a daughter, that a father is able to say to his daughter, "I want you to work for me and that money should go to me, and nevertheless I will not support you." Now if that would be true, then the קשיא would fall off, that even if we're speaking in a case of a daughter that is not supported by her father, nevertheless, any profit that she brings in goes to her father. So then we would understand why the דין is that if someone injured her, has to pay to the father even though she is not supported by the father. But he says this is not true, because even according to the מאן דאמר that holds that by an עבד you could say that, הני מילי בעבד כנעני, that is only true by an עבד כנעני, דאמר ליה, that the master could say to his עבד, עביד עבידתך כולי יומא, all day you work and that will go to me, ולאורתא, in the evening, זיל, go, סחר, go around, ואכול עני, go around from door to door in the evenings and collect money and that's how you will support yourself. אבל עבד עברי, but concerning a יידישע עבד, דכתיב, where the תורה says, כי טוב לו עמך, it is good to him with you, meaning עמך במאכל ועמך במשתה, he should be with together with you and he should have as good as you. He should have all the conveniences that you have. The same food that you eat he should eat, the same drink that you have he should drink. לא, so there he can't say it. A person cannot say to his עבד עברי that I want you to work for me as you are, since you are my עבד, and as far as support, I will not support you, because the תורה says clearly כי טוב לו עמך. So כל שכן בתו, certainly that a father cannot say that to his daughter. So definitely in a case where a father does not support his daughter, her מעשה ידיה goes to herself, any money she brings in goes to herself. Therefore, if she would be injured, the money would go to her. So now that we

establish that that ברייתא is speaking in a case where the father does not support the children, and there it speaks about a daughter being injured. In the same ברייתא, obviously it's also speaking by a daughter that is not supported by her father. So why does the ברייתא say that if she is injured by somebody else, the money goes to her father? But the גמרא says, כדאמר רבא בריה דרב עולא, that the answer to this would be as רבא בריה דרב עולא said concerning something else, that לא נצרכה אלא להעדפה, that we're talking only about the extra. That the truth is he has to support her, and if he doesn't support her, then the money that she makes goes for her own support. But what happens to the extra money, if she makes more than she needs for her support, so that goes to her father. הכא נמי, so here too, לא נצרכה אלא להעדפה, we're talking in a case of extra. When it says in the ברייתא that if someone injures a daughter of somebody else, a קטנה, has to pay the money for the injury to the father, that is only if that money is more than she needs for her support. Since, as we said before, the ברייתא is speaking in a case where the father does not support the child, so any money that she brings in goes for her support, but if there is extra, there is more than she needs for her support, so that goes to the father. And that what the ברייתא meant when it said you give it to the father. Then the גמרא continues to ask: אמאי אוקימתא לבתרייתא? In which way did you establish the second ברייתא? בשסמוכין על שולחנו, where it said in the second ברייתא that if you injure your own children, you are פטור, so we said that's the case where he supports them. But the question is: גדולים ינתן להם מיד, it says that if you injure someone else's children, so if they are גדולים, you have to give them right away. קטנים, if they are small children, יעשה להם סגולה, you make a good investment for them. But the

question is: אמאי, why? לאביהם מבעי ליה למיתב, shouldn't he have to give it to the father? Since we said before that this ברייתא is speaking in a case of children that are supported by their father. So, obviously, when the ברייתא speaks about injuring someone else's children, and since it's in the same ברייתא, it's also speaking about such children that are supported by their father. So if you injure them, since they are supported by their father, the money should go to their father. So why does the ברייתא say that if they're גדולים you give it to them, if they're קטנים you make for them a סגולה? Why shouldn't the דין be that you should have to pay to the father? And the גמרא answers, אמינא, I will tell you. כי קא קפיד, when does a father care in a case where the children are supported by the father? So when do we say that the father cares, במידי דקא חסר, in something that's missing? In other words, if he injures his own children, so there we don't say you have to pay, we don't make him lay out money, which will make him miss some money, because since he supports his children, so he doesn't have to pay them for the injury he causes to them. But במידי דאתי מעלמא, but money that comes in from the outside, לא קפיד, he doesn't care. So therefore, if they would get money for an injury that was done to them, it doesn't go to the father, because the father doesn't care if the money will go to them even if they are supported by him. But then the

גמרא asks, how can you say that? ומציאה דמעלמא קאתי, if you find a מציאה, you find something in the street, that comes from the outside, וקא קפיד, and we do say he cares, because the דין is we learn in בבא מציעא that children that are supported by the father, if they find a מציאה it goes to the father. So here we see that even though it's money that comes from the outside, nevertheless, since he supports them, he wants it. So the same דין should be here too, that the money that is paid to them for their injury should go to the father if he supports them, even though it comes from the outside. The גמרא says אמינא I will tell you, דאף דקאתו להו מעלמא דלית להו צערא דגופייהו בגווה קפיד. Money that comes from the outside, but it didn't come with any suffering on their part, then he cares. For instance, if you find a מציאה, so he says to them, even though this מציאה came from the outside, but nevertheless, since you didn't have to put anything into it, it didn't cost you any pain, so therefore give it to me since I support you. אבל חבלה, but an injury, דאית להו צערא דגופייהו, they have a pain, it caused them their suffering, ומעלמא קאתי להו and also it comes from the outside, לא קפיד, so he doesn't care. And therefore, in a case like that, we say that you have to pay to the children, not to the father, even though they are supported by their father. But then the גמרא asks, והא התם, but there, in the other case, in the case of a daughter being injured, דאית לה צערא דגופה, since she was injured she does suffer, ומעלמא קאתי לה, and this money comes from the outside, וקא קפיד, and still he cares, because דתני we learn in a ברייתא, ולא עוד not only that, אלא אחרים שחבלו בה חייבין ליתן לאביה, that if others injured her they have to pay to her father. So this is money that comes from the outside, not from her work, and it is money that comes through her suffering, and nevertheless, we see that you give it to the father because the father cares. So how can we say that money that comes from the outside and is connected to a suffering of the child, the father doesn't care? And the גמרא answers, אמינא I would tell you, the question that we just asked was from the other ברייתא. The ברייתא that we established before was speaking in a case where they are not supported by their father, and this daughter was also not supported by her father. And as we said before, that when it says that the money goes to the father, it means the extra money. And this was the question of the גמרא, that even this extra money should not go to the father since, in a case where it comes from the outside and comes through suffering, the father is not מקפיד. But the גמרא says it's not the same. דהתם גברא קפדנא הוא. That ברייתא is speaking in a case where they are not supported by the father, so it shows that the father is a father that cares. דהא אין סמוכין על שולחנו, since they are not supported by him, that shows that he cares about their money. He doesn't want to give them money. So then אפילו במידי דאתי מעלמא קפיד. So that person, who doesn't support his children, so he cares more, so even money that comes from the outside, he cares about and he wants to take it, and since על פי דין it belongs to him, so you have to give it to him. But הכא in this ברייתא דלאו גברא קפדנא הוא, it's not talking about a person who's generally a קפדן, a person who cares, דהא סמוכין על שולחנו, since we see that he supports his children, so obviously he is not so stingy with his money. So in this case, היכא קפיד? במידי דקא חסר ליה. So he would only care if he would have to miss something, if he would have to lay out money. אבל מידי דאתי מעלמא, but money that comes from the outside, לא קפיד, he doesn't care. And that's the difference between these two ברייתות. In that ברייתא you give it to the father in the case of extra money that comes in for the injury which is over the amount that she needs to support herself, because there the father cares and therefore you give it to him. And the second ברייתא, it's a case where the father doesn't care, and therefore if it's money that comes from the outside and comes through a suffering, that doesn't go to the father, it goes to the child. Then the גמרא asks,

מאי סגולה? We said before that in certain cases you take the money and you make out of it a good investment. What kind of investment do you do? רב חסדא אמר, רב חסדא says, ספר תורה, you buy a ספר תורה for the money. רבה בר רב הונא אמר דיקלא דאכל מיניה תמרי, you buy a palm tree that you can eat the dates from. Then the גמרא goes back to the דין that we said before. The question was asked, that who gets the money for the חבלה that is done to a daughter? רב says that the תורה only gave to the father the right over money that she brings in, but not over the חבלה, so therefore the money does not go to the father. So the גמרא says now, וכן אמר ריש לקיש, so did ריש לקיש say, דלא זכתה תורה לאב אלא שבח נעורים בלבד, the תורה only gave to the father the profit that comes in through her earnings at the time when she's young, but not for the חבלה. רבי יוחנן אמר, the גמרא says רבי יוחנן argues and he says, אפילו פציעה, even if he causes a wound, also the money for that wound goes to the father. The גמרא asks, פציעה סלקא דעתך? How could you think that for the wound the money should go to the father? אפילו רבי אלעזר לא קא מיבעיא ליה אלא חבלה. Even רבי אלעזר, who was the one that asked the question whether the money for the חבלה goes to the father or not, is only because there was a חבלה, meaning דאפחתה מכספה, he made her depreciate from her value, and since she, so to speak, belongs to her father, because her father, if he wants, could sell her as an אמה עבריה, so therefore Therefore, any depreciation in her value might go to her father, that was the question of רבי אלעזר. אבל פציעה, but in the case of a wound דלא אפחסה מכספא, that it didn't make her depreciate from her value, לא קמיבעיא ליה, there he never had a question, there he was, there he was sure that it goes to her. So how can we say that רבי יוחנן holds that even in a wound that doesn't make her depreciate, nevertheless you pay to the father? The גמרא says אמר רב יוסף בר חנינא, that רב יוסף בר חנינא said שפצעה בפניה, when he said a wound he meant a wound in the face, ואפחסה מכספא, so that did make her lose her value, and that's where he said that you have to pay to the father. That's the מחלוקת between רבי יוחנן and ריש לקיש whether the depreciation that is caused through the injury whether you pay to the father or you pay to her. And it's interesting to note that when the גמרא before brought a פסוק that by an עבד עברי you cannot say to him go ahead and work and I will not support you, but

the גמרא says because it says כי טוב לו עמך and we learn out from there עמך במאכל עמך במשתה, the תוספות says that according to some the גירסא was not the פסוק כי טוב לו עמך, but the פסוק כשכיר כתושב יהיה עמך, that he should be to you like a worker. And it explains why, because the פסוק כי טוב לו עמך doesn't tell us a דין. The תורה doesn't say you should make him good with you. It just says a statement, a fact, כי טוב לו עמך because he will be good together with you. But the פסוק כשכיר כתושב יהיה עמך the תורה is telling us what to do, that he should be with you like a שכיר and a תושב. So from that פסוק we learn out that he should be to you like a worker, meaning עמך, he should be to you together with you in the food, together with you in the drink, that you have to give him the same thing as you have. But the ריב"א says that באמת you could be גורס the פסוק כי טוב לו עמך, even though the פסוק doesn't tell us what to do, the תורה just mentions a fact that he will be good with you, but since the תורה mentions that a fact, obviously that's what the תורה wants to happen. From here we also know that the תורה wants that a עבד should be as good as you, meaning that any convenience that you have you should give him too. It is also, also interesting to note another קשיא the תוספות asks. When the גמרא says that the reason the ברייתא says that if you injure a קטנה so you have to give the money to the father it is because there we're speaking in a case where the father is מקפיד, he cares. And since he cares, so therefore you have to give him the money. But the other ברייתא is speaking in a case where the father doesn't care, as we see that he supports his children. So therefore, any money that comes from the outside and comes along with a pain to the children he doesn't mind if they keep it. The

תוספות asks from here it comes out that באמת the money belongs to the father. The only reason we say that in certain cases you don't give it to the father is because the father is not מקפיד, which means since he doesn't care it's as if he is מוחל and lets them have it, but על פי דין it belongs to the father. So the question is if the money belongs to the father, why do the חכמים say that if you injure a daughter a קטנה of somebody else, יעשו לה סגולה, you invest it in something good, why isn't the דין that you give it to the father? In the second ברייתא it says that if you injure someone else's בניו ובנותיו, his sons or his daughters, so if they're גדולים, then you give them right away. If they're קטנים, יעשו להם סגולה, then you invest it. And this refers to בנים and to בנות, sons or daughters. In other words the ברייתא says that if you injure someone else's daughter who is a קטנה, יעשו לה סגולה, and this refers to all the things that he has to pay, including שבת, including the money for the loss of time. Now the question is why? Since the money that she would have earned would have gone to him, so now that she couldn't work, so that money should go to him. So why is the דין that יעשו לה סגולה and it goes to her? And תוספות answers that מסתמא probably the חכמים estimated the mind of a person, that a person like that who is not מקפיד, since we're talking here in the second ברייתא where we're talking about a person who supports his children, so he is not מקפיד, so the חכמים understood that a person like that in a case where it came through injury and it's money that comes from the outside, so even concerning the שבת he wouldn't mind if it goes to the daughter, and therefore it says that even if it's a daughter, יעשו לה סגולה, you make the investment and it goes to the daughter.