Bava Kamma 87b (פז:) — the Talmud in English

He said to him

Rav said to Rabbi Elazar:

The Torah granted the father only the “benefit of her youth”

the money of her betrothal

alone,

but the payments for her injury belong to her herself and not to her father.

It might have been thought that Rav maintains that even her lost wages belong to her and not to her father.

He challenged him

[he raised a difficulty] from our Mishna:

One who injures a Hebrew slave is liable for all the payments, except for lost wages when he is

the slave

his own,

since if one injures his own Hebrew slave, he does not pay him for lost wages, as the slave’s labor belongs to his master. If so, the lost wages of his daughter should likewise belong to her father, since her labor belongs to her father!?

Abaye said:

Rav said that the payments for her injury belong to her herself only with regard to “damage”—the amount by which her value was reduced through the injury—but

Rav concedes with regard to “lost wages”

that they belong to her father, since

her labor belongs to her father until the time of her maturity.

He challenged him

from a beraita:

One who injures

his

adult son—

shall give

him [he shall pay him]

immediately.

If one injures

his

son

who is a minor,

he should not give the money to him immediately, since he does not know how to safeguard it, and giving it to him is like throwing the money away. Rather,

he shall make

a segula for him

a treasure until he grows up. And below the Gemara explains what “segula” means.

One who injures his minor daughter is exempt; moreover,

even

others who injure her are liable to give the payment to her father.

This is difficult for Rav, who said that the payments for her injury belong to her herself. And we answer:

Here too,

the beraita is not speaking of “damage,” but

of “lost wages,”

since her labor belongs to him, and lost wages take the place of labor and its proceeds. Therefore, one who injures his minor daughter is exempt from paying lost wages, while others who injure her give the lost wages to her father. But with regard to “damage,” -

they belong to her and not to her father.

The Gemara now returns to discuss the beraita mentioned above:

And in the case of his adult son, he shall give it to him immediately!?

Is he really obligated to pay him for injuring him!?

And we raise a contradiction

[a contradiction is raised] from another beraita:

One who injures the sons or daughters of others,

if

they are adults,

then he

shall give it to them immediately;

if

they are minors,

then he

shall make a segula for them.

One who injures

his own sons or daughters—

is exempt,

whereas the first beraita maintains that he is liable to pay. These beraitot contradict one another!?

They said

[the members of the academy answered]:

It is not difficult! Here,

[the case in which it teaches that he is exempt,]

is when

his sons and daughters are

dependent on his table

and are supported by him.

Here

[the case in which it teaches that he is liable]

is when

his sons and daughters are

not dependent on his table.

If they are dependent on his table, the father is exempt from paying them lost wages, since he supports them; but if they are not dependent on his table and he does not support them, he is liable to pay them for their injuries.

And we challenge this:

On what basis did you establish the

beraita

first: as referring to those who are not dependent on his table? If so, read the latter clause

of that beraita:

One who injures his minor daughter is exempt; moreover, others who injure her are liable to give the payment to her father.

But above we said, according to Rav, that the beraita is speaking of payment for “lost wages.” Now this is difficult: If it is referring to those who are not dependent on his table and support themselves through the proceeds of their labor, then

with regard to her, he should have to give her

[pay her] the “lost wages,”

since

she

requires sustenance,

and “lost wages” take the place of “the proceeds of labor.”

And

one cannot say that the father may tell his daughter: Work and give me your wages, while I will not provide you with sustenance; rather, go and support yourself from charity. Likewise here, one might say that the father should take her lost wages, while she supports herself from charity.

In Gittin 12b, the amoraim disagreed whether a master may say to his Canaanite slave: “Work for me, and I will not provide you with sustenance.”

Nor can this be said, since

even according to the one who says: A master may say to a slave, “Work for me

your

labor, and I will not provide you with sustenance,”

[provide you with sustenance,] this

applies to a Canaanite slave, to whom the master says

his slave:

“Work all day, and in the evening go around and eat”

[work all day, and in the evening go around begging at the doors so that you will have something to eat].

But with regard to a Hebrew slave, of whom it is written

in it [Deuteronomy 15:16]:

“For it is good for him with you,”

and we expound [Kiddushin 20a]:

“With you”—

in food; “with you” in drink.

You may not eat fine bread while he eats coarse bread; you may not drink aged wine while he drinks new wine; you may not sleep on mattresses while he sleeps on the ground. From here they said: Whoever acquires a Hebrew slave acquires a master for himself.

It is obvious, then, that the master

cannot

say to him: “Work for me, and I will not provide you with sustenance.”

And

all the more so

with regard to

his daughter,

he cannot say to her: “Give me the proceeds of your labor and go support yourself from charity.”

If so, how can the first beraita, which says that when others injure a minor daughter they give the lost wages to her father, be speaking of a case in which the daughter is not dependent on her father’s table? Lost wages are equivalent to the proceeds of labor, and this is like saying to her: “Give me the proceeds of your labor and go support yourself from charity”!?

And we answer:

It is as Rava, son of Rav Ulla, said

with regard to the proceeds of her labor. We say in Ketubot 43a that the proceeds of her labor belong to her father even when he does not provide her with sustenance. And we challenge this: A person cannot say to his Hebrew slave, “Work for me and I will not provide you with sustenance”; all the more so, he cannot say this to his daughter! Rava, son of Rav Ulla, answered:

It is necessary only with regard to the surplus,

for if the proceeds of her labor exceed her sustenance, the surplus of her labor belongs to her father.

Here too,

with regard to lost wages,

it is necessary

to say that the lost wages belong to her father

only with

regard to the

surplus:

if the payment for her lost wages exceeds her sustenance, the surplus belongs to her father.

And we challenge this:

On what basis did you establish the

beraita

latter

which teaches: “One who injures his own sons and daughters is exempt,”

as referring to those dependent on his table?

If so, why does the first clause of that beraita teach: “One who injures the sons and daughters of others,”

if they are adults—

he shall give it to them immediately; if they are minors—

he shall make a segula for them?

And

why,

since they are dependent on their father’s table,

should it be given to their father,

for if their father injured them, he is exempt from lost wages because they are dependent on his table, then when others injure them as well, the payment for lost wages should be given to their father!?

They said

[the members of the academy answered]: When others injure them, the payment for lost wages does not belong to their father, even though the father is exempt from paying lost wages to his children, because

when he resents

the father

it is regarding something that causes him a loss

[a matter in which he loses money]. Therefore, money is not taken from him when he injured them.

But

with regard to something that comes from elsewhere,

the lost wages that come from others who injured them,

he does not resent it

if the children take the lost wages for themselves. Therefore, the Sages did not enact that the lost wages belong to the father.

And we challenge this:

But what of a found object,

which

does not cause the father a monetary loss, and

from elsewhere

[from another place]

it

comes

to them,

and nevertheless the Sages enacted that an object found by children dependent on their father’s table belongs to their father, since

he resents it

if they do not give him what they found!?

They answered:

The yeshiva students answered: There is no comparison between a found object that comes to them without pain and payments for Shabbat that come through injury and bodily pain

the profit that

comes

to them from elsewhere, and they have no bodily pain involved in it

in this monetary gain;

the father is particular

about it.

But injury, since they have bodily pain, and

also

from elsewhere it

comes

to them—

he is not particular,

and the Sages did not enact it for him.

Therefore, one who injures his sons is exempt, since he diminishes their property; if others injure them, the payments are given to the sons and not to the father, since they experience bodily pain, even though the payment comes from elsewhere; whereas the sons’ found objects belong to their father, since they do not experience bodily pain. All this applies to sons who are dependent on their father’s table.

But with regard to sons who are not dependent on their father’s table, even if the father injures them, he is liable to pay them; all the more so if others injure them. And their found objects belong to them.

And we raise an objection:

But there

in the first beraita,

where bodily pain is involved and the payment comes from elsewhere

—that is what

comes to her, and

the father acquires the compensation for injuring his daughter—since

he is particular!?

For

it teaches: “Moreover,

even

if others injure her, they are liable to give the payment to her father,”

and why is this so? Did you not say: With regard to something that comes from elsewhere and involves bodily pain, he is not particular?

They answered:

The yeshiva students answered: The case there is different, because

he is a particular man

a particular person,

as they are not dependent on his table,

and such a person

is particular even with regard to something that comes to them from elsewhere.

But

here,

in the later beraita,

where he is not a particular man, as they are dependent on his table,

we say:

When he is particular, it is with regard to something by which he is diminished

financially, even though they experience bodily pain;

with regard to something that comes to them from elsewhere

and involves bodily pain,

he is not particular.

We learned in the beraita above: One who injures his minor son should place the money in a secure investment for him.

And we explain:

What is meant by “a secure investment”?

Rav Hisda said: A Torah scroll

for him to study from; thus, he receives the fruit [of the learning], while the principal remains intact.

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: A palm tree

a date palm,

from which he eats

dates

while the principal remains intact. But he should not give the money to a business partnership, lest some mishap occur and it be lost.

The Gemara now returns to Rav’s statement that the Torah granted the father only the “benefit of youth.”

And Reish Lakish likewise said

in accordance with Rav’s view:

The Torah granted the father only the “benefit of youth.”

And Rabbi Yohanan

disagreed and

said: Even

payments for

wounding

the Torah granted to the father.

And we raise a difficulty:

Can it enter your mind that the father acquires the payments for wounding

?

But

even Rabbi Elazar

who asked Rav earlier

did not

inquire

except

was uncertain

about

the matter of

injury.