ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 87
(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
(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.
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.
(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
(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'.
(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
(b) And he says that ...
1. ... a man who wounds his own daughter who is a Ketanah - is Patur from
(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).
2. ... and that someone else who wounds her - must pay him.
(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
(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
We learned earlier that, if a father wounds his son who is a Katan, he
invests the Nezek for when he grows up. Rav Chisda explains this to mean
that he purchases a Seifer-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.
(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.
(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
(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.