בבא קמא דף פז

וכן היה רבי יהודה פוטרו מכל דינים שבתורה. מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה? אמר קרא: ״ושפטו העדה בין המכה ובין גאל הדם

and so did Rabbi Yehuda exempt a blind person from all judgments of civil law that are in the Torah. The Gemara explains: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? The verse states with regard to an unintentional killing: “Then the congregation shall judge between the smiter and the avenger of blood, according to these laws” (Numbers 35:24), to teach that anyone who is subject to the halakha of a smiter and to the halakha of an avenger of blood is subject to civil laws, and anyone who is not subject to the halakha of a smiter or to the halakha of an avenger of blood, including a blind person, is not subject to civil laws.

על המשפטים האלה״ – כל שישנו במכה ובגואל הדם, ישנו במשפטים; כל שאינו במכה ובגואל הדם, אינו במשפטים.

תניא אידך, רבי יהודה אומר: סומא אין לו בושת. וכן היה רבי יהודה פוטרו מכל מצות האמורות בתורה. אמר רב שישא בריה דרב אידי:

The Gemara presents another statement of Rabbi Yehuda. It is taught in another baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: A blind person does not have, i.e., receive, compensation for humiliation, and so did Rabbi Yehuda exempt a blind person from all mitzvot that are stated in the Torah. Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? The verse states: “And this is the commandment, statutes, and laws” (Deuteronomy 6:1), to teach that anyone who is subject to civil laws is also subject to the commandments and statutes, and anyone who is not subject to civil laws, including a blind person, is also not subject to the commandments and statutes.

מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה? אמר קרא: ״ואלה המצות החקים והמשפטים״ – כל שישנו במשפטים, ישנו במצות וחקים; וכל שאינו במשפטים, אינו במצות וחקים.

אמר רב יוסף, מריש הוה אמינא: מאן דאמר הלכה כרבי יהודה – דאמר: סומא פטור מן המצות, קא עבדינא יומא טבא לרבנן, מאי טעמא? דלא מפקדנא,

Rav Yosef, who was blind, said: At first, I would say: If I hear one who says that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: A blind person is exempt from the mitzvot, then I will host a festive day for the Sages. What is the reason? It is that I am not commanded and nevertheless I perform mitzvot.

וקא עבדינא מצות.

והשתא דשמעית להא דרבי חנינא, דאמר רבי חנינא: גדול המצווה ועושה – ממי שאינו מצווה ועושה; מאן דאמר לי: אין הלכה כרבי יהודה,

Rav Yosef continues. But now that I heard this statement of Rabbi Ḥanina, as Rabbi Ḥanina says: One who is commanded and performs a mitzva is greater than one who is not commanded and performs it, I say: If I hear one who says to me that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, then I will host a festive day for the Sages. What is the reason? It is that as I am commanded, I have more reward.

עבידנא יומא טבא לרבנן. מאי טעמא? דכי מפקדינא – אית לי אגרא טפי.

מתני׳ זה חומר באדם מבשור – שהאדם משלם נזק, צער, ריפוי, שבת ובושת, ומשלם דמי ולדות; ושור אינו משלם אלא נזק, ופטור מדמי ולדות.

MISHNA: This halakha is a stringency with regard to a person who caused injury, compared to the halakha with regard to an ox that caused injury: The halakha is that the person pays compensation for damage, pain, medical costs, loss of livelihood, and humiliation; and if he caused a woman to miscarry he also pays compensation for miscarried offspring, as the verse states (see Exodus 21:22). But in the case of an ox that caused injury, the owner pays only compensation for damage, and he is exempt from paying compensation for miscarried offspring.

המכה את אביו ואת אמו ולא עשה בהן חבורה, וחובל בחבירו ביום הכפורים – חייב בכולן.

The mishna continues: One who strikes his father or his mother but did not cause them to have a bruise, and therefore is not liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment, and one who injures another on Yom Kippur, the punishment for which is not court-imposed capital punishment, is liable to pay for all of the five types of indemnity.

החובל בעבד עברי – חייב בכולן, חוץ מן השבת בזמן שהוא שלו. החובל בעבד כנעני של אחרים – חייב בכולן. רבי יהודה אומר: אין לעבדים בושת.

One who injures a Hebrew slave is liable to pay for all of the five types of indemnity. This is except for compensation for loss of livelihood suffered during the time that the injured slave belongs to the one that injured him. Since the right to the slave’s labor belongs to his master, his inability to work is his master’s loss. One who injures a Canaanite slave belonging to others is liable to pay for all of the five types of indemnity. Rabbi Yehuda says: Canaanite slaves do not have humiliation, so the one who injures the slave pays only the other four types of indemnity.

חרש, שוטה וקטן פגיעתן רעה, החובל בהן – חייב, והם שחבלו באחרים – פטורין.

The mishna continues: With regard to a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, an encounter with them is disadvantageous. In other words, no favorable outcome is possible for someone involved in an incident with one of these people, since one who injures them is liable. But if they were the ones who injured others, they are exempt. This is because they lack awareness and are not responsible for their actions.

העבד והאשה פגיעתן רעה, החובל בהם – חייב, והם שחבלו באחרים – פטורין, אבל משלמין לאחר זמן. נתגרשה האשה, נשתחרר העבד – חייבין לשלם.

Similarly, with regard to a slave and a married woman, an encounter with them is disadvantageous, since one who injures them is liable. But if they were the ones who injured others, they are exempt, because they do not have money with which to pay compensation. But they pay compensation at a later time. The exemption is only temporary, as, if the woman becomes divorced or the slave becomes emancipated, and they then have their own money, they are liable to pay compensation.

המכה אביו ואמו ועשה בהן חבורה, והחובל בחבירו בשבת – פטור מכולן, מפני שהוא נדון בנפשו.

The mishna continues: One who strikes his father or his mother and causes them to have a bruise, or one who injures another on Shabbat, is exempt from paying all of the five types of indemnity, because he is judged with losing his life. The court imposes capital punishment for these acts, so there is no additional monetary punishment.

והחובל בעבד כנעני שלו – פטור מכולן.

And one who injures his own Canaanite slave is exempt from paying all of the five types of indemnity, because his slave is his property.

גמ׳ בעא מיניה רבי אלעזר מרב: החובל בבת קטנה של אחרים, חבלה למי?

GEMARA: The Gemara discusses a case of compensation for injury. Rabbi Elazar raised a dilemma before Rav: In a case of one who injures the minor daughter of others, to whom does he pay compensation for the injury?

מי אמרינן: כיון דאקני ליה רחמנא שבח נעורים לאב – חבלה נמי דאבוה הוי, מאי טעמא – דהא אפחתה מכספה; או דילמא, שבח נעורים הוא דאקני ליה רחמנא,

Rabbi Elazar explains the dilemma: Do we say that since the Merciful One granted the profits of her youth to the father, as he receives her betrothal money, compensation for injury also belongs to her father? What is the reason that he should receive it? The reason is that the one who injured her lowered her monetary value, resulting in her father receiving gifts of lesser value when she is betrothed. Or perhaps it is only the profits of her youth that the Merciful One granted to her father, because if he desires to give her in marriage to a man afflicted with boils, he can give her to him, but with regard to injury, since if he desires to injure her he may not injure her, just as he may not injure any other person, the Merciful One did not grant him the right to receive the compensation when she is injured.

דאי בעי לממסר לה למוכה שחין – מצי מסר, אבל חבלה – כיון דאי בעי מ(ת)חבל בה לא מצי חביל, לא (קנייה) [אקני] ליה רחמנא?

אמר ליה: לא זכתה תורה לאב, אלא שבח נעורים בלבד. איתיביה: החובל בעבד עברי – חייב בכולן, חוץ מן השבת בזמן שהוא שלו! אמר אביי: מודה רב בשבת,

Rav said to Rabbi Elazar in response: The Torah granted the father only the profits of her youth and nothing else. Therefore, compensation for the injury goes to the daughter. Rabbi Elazar raised an objection to Rav’s statement based on the mishna: One who injures a Hebrew slave is liable for all of the five types of indemnity. This is except for compensation for loss of livelihood occurring during the time that the injured slave belongs to the one that injured him. This should be the halakha with regard to a minor daughter as well, that since the father has the right to the earnings of his minor daughter, he should receive the compensation for her loss of livelihood. Abaye said in response: Rav concedes with regard to compensation for her loss of livelihood that it is paid to the father, since her earnings belong to her father until the time of her adulthood, and therefore her inability to work is her father’s loss.

דמעשה ידיה עד שעת בגרות – דאבוה הוי.

איתיביה: החובל בבנו גדול – יתן לו מיד, בבנו קטן – יעשה לו סגולה. החובל בבתו קטנה – פטור, ולא עוד,

Rabbi Elazar raised an objection to Rav’s statement based on a baraita: One who injures his adult son must give him his compensation immediately. If one injured his minor son he must make a safe investment [segulla] for him with the compensation money. One who injures his minor daughter is exempt, and moreover, if there were others who injured her, they are liable to give compensation to her father. The Gemara answers: So too here, the baraita is speaking with regard to the daughter’s loss of livelihood alone, which is paid to the father. The other types of indemnity are paid to the daughter.

אלא אחרים שחבלו בה – חייבין ליתן לאביה! הכי נמי בשבת.

ובבנו גדול יתן לו מיד? ורמינהו: החובל בבניו ובבנותיו של אחרים, גדולים – יתן להם מיד, קטנים – יעשה להם סגולה. בבניו ובבנותיו שלו – פטור!

The Gemara questions the first ruling of the baraita: And is it so that if a father injured his adult son he must give him his compensation immediately? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from that which is taught in another baraita: In a case of one who injures the sons or daughters of others, if they are adults he must give them their compensation immediately; if they are minors he must make a safe investment for them. If one injures his own sons or daughters, he is exempt from paying them compensation.

אמרי: לא קשיא; כאן כשסמוכים על שלחנו, כאן כשאין סמוכין על שלחנו.

The Sages say in response: This is not difficult. Here, where the baraita states that the father is exempt, it is dealing with a case where the children are dependent on their father’s table for support. There, where the baraita states that the father is liable, it is dealing with a case where the children are not dependent on his table.

במאי אוקימתה לקמייתא – בשאין סמוכין על שלחנו? אי הכי, אימא סיפא: החובל בבתו הקטנה – פטור; ולא עוד, אלא אחרים שחבלו בה – חייבין ליתן לאביה.

The Gemara challenges this resolution of the two baraitot: In what manner did you interpret the first baraita? You interpreted it as dealing with a case where the children are not dependent on his table? If so, say the latter clause of that baraita: One who injures his minor daughter is exempt, and moreover, if there were others who injured her, they are liable to give compensation to her father. If this is a case where the daughter is not dependent upon her father for support, then the one who injured her would be required to give the compensation to her, because she needs to provide her own sustenance.

לדידה בעי למיתב לה – דבעיא מזוני!

ואפילו למאן דאמר: יכול הרב לומר לעבד ״עשה עמי ואיני זנך״; הני מילי בעבד כנעני – דאמר ליה: עביד עבידתא כולי יומא,

The Gemara continues its challenge. And even according to the one who says that a master can say to his slave: Work for me but I will not feed you, i.e., a master is not legally obligated to provide sustenance for his slave, this matter applies only to a Canaanite slave, as the master can say to him: Work for me the entire day, and at night go around, beg, and eat. But in the case of a Hebrew slave, as it is written with regard to him: “Because he fares well with you” (Deuteronomy 15:16), indicating that the Hebrew slave must be “with you” in food and “with you” in drink, i.e., the Hebrew slave is entitled to live with his master as an equal, the master may not compel the slave to serve him unless he feeds him. All the more so is it not the case with regard to his daughter, that she is not required to beg for her sustenance and should receive the compensation herself?

ולאורתא זיל סחר ואכול; אבל עבד עברי, דכתיב: ״כי טוב לו עמך״ – עמך במאכל, עמך במשתה – לא כל שכן בתו?!

כדאמר רבא בריה דרב עולא: לא נצרכה אלא להעדפה; הכא נמי, לא נצרכה אלא להעדפה.

The Gemara answers: This is as Rava, son of Rav Ulla, said concerning a similar matter (Ketubot 43a): This halakha is necessary only for the surplus, i.e., money that a woman earns beyond what she needs for her essential sustenance. Here too, this halakha is necessary only for the surplus. If the compensation for injury is more than the daughter requires for her sustenance, the additional sum is paid to her father.

במאי אוקימתה לבתרייתא – בסמוכין על שלחנו? ״גדולים – יתן להם מיד, קטנים – יעשה להם סגולה״, אמאי? לאביהם בעי למיתב!

The Gemara again challenges the resolution of the two baraitot: In what manner did you interpret the latter baraita discussing one who injures the children of another? You interpreted it as dealing with a case where the sons are dependent on their father’s table. But the baraita also stated: If they are adults, he must give them their compensation immediately; if they are minors, he must make a safe investment for them. Why does he make a safe investment for them? Shouldn’t he be required to give the compensation to their father?

אמרי: כי קא קפיד – במידי דקא חסר, במידי דאתא מעלמא – לא קפיד.

The Sages say in response: Where the father is particular about receiving money that would go to his child is specifically in a matter that causes him a loss, as in a case where the father himself injured his child and would need to pay compensation. But in a matter that comes from elsewhere, as in a case where someone else injured his child, he is not particular about receiving the money, and it is paid to the child.

והא מציאה, דמעלמא קאתי להו, וקא קפיד! אמרי: רווחא דקאתי להו מעלמא, ולית להו צערא דגופייהו בגווה – קפיד; אבל חבלה, דאית להו צערא דגופייהו,

The Gemara challenges that response: But isn’t a found item a matter that comes to the children from elsewhere, and the father is particular about receiving it? The Sages say in response: With regard to profit that comes to the children from elsewhere, and they do not suffer physical pain in obtaining it, the father is particular about receiving the money, as he does not feel that the children deserve it. But in the case of an injury, where they suffer physical pain and it comes to them from elsewhere, the father is not particular about receiving the compensation paid to his child.

ומעלמא קאתי להו – לא קפיד.

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

The Gemara challenges: But there, in the first baraita, isn’t it discussing a case where the daughter suffers physical pain, and it is a matter that comes to her from elsewhere, and the father is particular about receiving the money, as it teaches: And moreover, if there were others who injured her, they are liable to give compensation to her father?

אמרי: התם, דגברא קפדנא הוא, דהא אין סמוכין על שלחנו – אפילו במידי דאתי להו מעלמא קפיד. הכא, דלאו גברא קפדנא הוא,

The Sages say in response: There, the baraita discusses a case where the father is a captious man, which is evident from the case of the baraita itself, as his children are not dependent on his table. A man like this is particular even about matters that come to them from elsewhere. By contrast, here, in the latter baraita, it discusses a case where the father is not a captious man, which is evident from the case of the baraita itself, as his children are dependent on his table. When he is particular about receiving the money, it is in a matter that causes him a loss, but in a matter that comes to them from elsewhere, he is not particular.

דהא סמוכין על שלחנו; כי קא קפיד – במידי דקא חסר ליה, במידי דאתי להו מעלמא – לא קפיד.

מאי ״סגולה״? רב חסדא אמר: ספר תורה. רבה בר רב הונא אמר: דיקלא דאכיל מיניה תמרי.

The two baraitot stated that the father makes a safe investment for his minor children with the compensation paid to them. The Gemara asks: What is meant by a safe investment? Rav Ḥisda says: The father should purchase a Torah scroll for his child. Rabba bar Rav Huna, says: The father should purchase a date palm, from which the child will consume dates.

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

The Gemara comments that the amora’im of Eretz Yisrael discussed the same issue as did those in Babylonia. And so says Reish Lakish: The Torah granted the father only the profits of her youth, and nothing else. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The father receives even the compensation for his daughter’s wound.

פציעה סלקא דעתך?! אפילו רבי אלעזר לא קמיבעיא ליה אלא חבלה –

The Gemara objects: Does it enter your mind that the father receives compensation for his daughter’s wound, which, unlike an injury, does not diminish his daughter’s value? Even Rabbi Elazar raised his dilemma only with regard to an injury,