Previous daf

1)

(a) In a second Beraisa, Rebbi Yehudah maintains that a blind man is not subject to shame. And he learns ...

1. ... from the Pasuk "ve'Shaftu ha'Eidah Bein ha'Makeh u'Vein Go'el ha'Dam al ha'Mishpatim ha'Eileh" - that whoever is not included in the Dinim of Makeh and Go'el ha'Dam (i.e. the Dinim of Miysas Beis-Din), is not included in Mishpatim (the Dinim connected with monetary laws) either (see Tosfos DH 've'Chein').
2. ... in a third Beraisa, from the Pasuk "ve'Zos ha'Mitzvah, ha'Chukim ve'ha'Mishpatim" - that whoever is Patur from Mishpatim is also Patur from Mitzvos and Chukim.

(b) Rav Yosef initially declared that he would make a party for anyone who would rule like Rebbi Yehudah (who exempted anyone who was blind from performing the Mitzvos) because he himself was blind, and he believed at the time that it is more worthy to volunteer to perform Mitzvos that to be commanded to perform them.

(c) He changed his mind however, when he heard what Rebbi Chanina, who said - 'Kol ha'Metzuveh ve'Oseh Gadol mi'Mi she'Eino Metzuveh ve Oseh' (that it is greater to perform a Mitzvah that one has been commanded than to volunteer to perform it.

(d) From then on, he declared - that he would make a party for anyone who would rule not like Rebbi Yehudah.

(a) Our Mishnah states that Adam ha'Mazik pays the five things, whereas Shor ha'Mazik does not. The source for this is the Pasuk "Ish ba'Amiso", 've'Lo Shor ba'Amiso'.

(b) The Parshah that obligates the five things begins with the words "Ki Yinatzu Anashim". We learn from the word "Anashim" - "Anashim", 've'Lo Shevarim', exempting Shor from paying for D'mei V'lados (should it gore a woman and kill her babies).

(c) If someone strikes his parents without causing a wound, and someone who wounds someone on Yom Kipur, are both Chayav to pay. The Tana need to teach us this - because we would otherwise have thought that just like someone who is Chayav Miysah bi'Yedei Adam is Patur from paying, so too is someone who is Chayav Kareis.

(d) If Reuven wounds Shimon's Eved Ivri, he pays all five things. If he wounds his own Eved Ivri - he is Chayav everything except for She'ves.

(a) According to the Tana Kama, if someone wounds an Eved Cana'ani, he pays all five things. Rebbi Yehudah says - 'Ein la'Avadim Bo'shes.

(b) When the Tana says 'Chashu' Pegi'asan Ra - he means that one is well-advised to steer clear of them, since someone who wounds them is obligated to pay, whereas they are Patur from paying should they damage.

(c) An Eved Cana'ani and a woman are different than a 'Chashu' in this regard - inasmuch as although they do not have the means to pay for their damages at the time that they have a master/husband, they do carry the obligation to pay the moment their status changes and they obtain the means to do so.

(d) Someone who strikes ...

1. ... his parents and causes a wound and Reuven who wounds Shimon on Shabbos - is Patur from paying, because he is Chayav Miysah, and we have a principle 'Kam Lei bi'de'Rabah Mineh'.
2. ... his own Eved Cana'ani - is Patur from paying, because he is permitted to strike him (as the Pasuk writes in Mishlei "bi'Devarim Lo Yivaser Eved" [words will not suffice to chastise an Eved]).

(a) Rebbi Elazar asked Rav what the Din will be if Reuven wounds Shimon's daughter who is a Ketanah. He might be obligated to pay Shimon and not the girl herself - because the Torah granted him 'Sh'vach Ne'urim, the right to marry her off to whoever he wishes, and to the Kidushin money. Wounding her results in her depreciation, causing her father a loss, in which case he is entitled to the Nezek.

(b) On the other hand, the Nezek may well be different than the Sh'vach Ne'urim - because seeing as her father does not have the authority to wound his daughter, he is not entitled to the Nezek either.

(c) Rav replied 'Lo Zachsah ha'Torah le'Av Ela Sh'vach Ne'urim Bi'levad'.

5)

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that someone who wounds his own Eved Ivri is Patur from paying She'ves - because it follows the Din of Ma'aseh Yadav, which belong to the master.

(b) Rav did indeed just say 'Lo Zachsah Torah le'Av Ela Sh'vach Ne'urim Bil'vad', denying the girl's father the right to her *Nezek*, but She'ves is different, as we just explained.

(a) The distinction that the Tana of another Beraisa makes between wounding one's own son if he is already a Gadol, and wounding him when he is still a Katan is - that in the former case, he is obligated to pay him immediately, whereas in the latter, he invests it for when he grows up (which will explained shortly).

(b) And he says that ...

1. ... a man who wounds his own daughter who is a Ketanah - is Patur from paying ...
2. ... and that someone else who wounds her - must pay him.

(c) Rav reconciles his ruling ('Lo Zachsah Torah ... ') with this Beraisa - by establishing it too, by She'ves (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 presents a father with the Ma'aseh Yadayim of his daughter, but not of his son.

(a) Another Beraisa makes the same distinction between Reuven who wounds Shimon's son when he is already a Gadol and when 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.

(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 when he wounds her, and b. why he receives the Nezek when others wound her? Surely she needs to eat?

(b) This problem would not necessarily exist in the case of an Eved Cana'ani - because according to one opinion, the master is permitted to say to him 'Asei Imi ve'Eini Zancha' ('Work for me but I will not feed you').

(c) The Eved Cana'ani will then 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 Cana'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.

(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 girl produces enough for her own basic needs, and the money in question would 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 money goes to them, because we take for granted the fact that the father would not mind money that comes from external sources going to them. Despite that, whatever they find, goes to their father - because it came to them easily, whereas with Nezek (besides the fact that it came from an external source) they suffered from the wound.

(d) 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 when they suffered on account of the wound as well.

11)

(a) Resh Lakish concurs with Rav, who learned above 'Lo Zachsah Torah le'Av Ela Sh'vach Ne'urim Bil'vad'. When Rebbi Yochanan says 'Afilu Petzi'ah' we think he means - even if someone struck her and hurt her, without causing a wound.

(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.