87b----------------------------------------87b
click for question
5)
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that someone who wounds his own Eved Ivri is Patur from paying Sheves because it follows the Din of Ma'aseh Yadav, which belong to the master.
(b) Abaye reconciles Rav's current ruling ('Lo Zachsah Torah le'Av Ela Shevach Ne'urim Bil'vad') with the Mishnah by differentiating between Nezek and Sheves, based on the father's rights to whatever his daughter produces until she becomes a Bogeres.
click for question
6)
(a) Another Beraisa obligates a father who wound one's own son when he is already a Gadol to pay him immediately; whereas if he does so when he is still a Katan it obligates him to invest the money that he owes him for when he grows up (which will explained shortly).
(b) And the Tana rules that ...
1. ... a man who wounds his own daughter who is a Ketanah is Patur from paying ...
2. ... whereas someone else who wounds her must pay him.
(c) Rav reconciles his earlier ruling ('Lo Zachsah Torah ... ') with this Beraisa by establishing it too, by Sheves (whereas he is speaking about Nezek, as we explained earlier).
(d) The basis for the distinction between a son who is a Katan (whom the father is obligated to pay in the event that he wounds him), and a daughter who is a Ketanah (whom he is Patur from paying) is that the Torah grants a father the rights to the Ma'aseh Yadayim of his daughter, but not of his son.
click for question
7)
(a) Another Beraisa draws the same distinction between Reuven who wounds Shimon's son when he is already a Gadol and one who does so whilst he is still a Katan as the first Beraisa made in the case of someone who wounds his own son. This Tana rules that someone who wounds his own sons and daughters is Patur from paying.
(b) The previous Beraisa, which rules that he is obligated to pay his children Nezek speaks when the children do not eat at their father's table, whereas the current Beraisa, which exempts him from paying, speaks when they do.
click for question
8)
(a) Having established the earlier Beraisa when the children do not eat at their father's table, the dual problem with the equivalent Din by a daughter is a. why the father is then Patur if he wounds her, and b. why he receives the Nezek when others wound her? Surely she needs to eat?
(b) This problem will not necessarily exist in the case of an Eved Kena'ani according to those who permit the master to say to him 'Asei Imi ve'Eini Zancha' ('Work for me but I will not feed you') ...
(c) ... in which case the Eved Kena'ani will survive by working during the day and begging at night (see Rashash).
(d) We learn from the Pasuk "Ki Tov Lo Imach" that even though a master can perhaps say to an Eved Kena'ani 'Asei Imi ve'Eini Zancha', he cannot say it to an Eved Ivri, and a father can certainly not say it to his daughter.
click for question
9)
(a) We finally explain why the father is Patur from paying his daughter Nezek (and why if others wound her, the Nezek goes to the father), by establishing the case like Rava B'rei de'Rav Ula, who establishes a similar case concerning a wife by Ha'adafah (meaning when the wife produces enough for her own basic needs, and the money in question will be used for luxuries.
(b) Having established the latter Beraisa when the children eat at their fathers' table, should somebody else wound them, we would have expected the Din to be that they pay the Nezek to their father (just like he is Patur when he wounds her).
(c) Nevertheless, the Beraisa rules that that the father invests the money on their behalf because we assume that the father will not object to money that comes from external sources goes to them.
(d) Despite that, whatever they find, goes to their father because it came to them without pain, unlike Nezek, which caused them to suffer.
(e) Nevertheless, in the first Beraisa, the Tana rules that the Nezek of his daughter who is a Ketanah goes to him because the Tana is speaking about a fussy man (as the fact that his little children do not eat at their father's table indicate), and such a person is particular even with regard to what comes to his children from an external source, and even if they suffered in the process.
click for question
10)
(a) We learned earlier that, if a father wounds his son who is a Katan, he invests the money for when he grows up. Rav Chisda explains this to mean that he purchases a Sefer-Torah with the money. According to Rabah bar Rav Huna he buys him a date-palm from which the child eats the dates, whilst the tree remains intact.
click for question
11)
(a) Reish Lakish concurs with Rav, who learned above 'Lo Zachsah Torah le'Av Ela Shevach Ne'urim Bil'vad'. When Rebbi Yochanan says 'Afilu Petzi'ah' we think that he means even if someone struck her and hurt her, without causing a wound, goes to the father too.
(b) The problem we have with that is even Rebbi Elazar (who asked the She'eilah in the first place) only talked about Nezek going to the father, but not the Tza'ar.
(c) Consequently, what Rebbi Yochanan really mean was that the man struck her across the face causing her a wound, which goes to the father because the Mazik caused her to decrease in value.
Next Daf
Index to Review Questions and Answers for Maseches Bava Kama
