## Bava Kamma Daf 87b

###### Bava Kamma 87b:1
[Bava Kamma 87b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/87b:1)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לֹא זִכְּתָה תּוֹרָה לָאָב, אֶלָּא שֶׁבַח נְעוּרִים בִּלְבָד. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: הַחוֹבֵל בְּעֶבֶד עִבְרִי – חַיָּיב בְּכוּלָּן, חוּץ מִן הַשֶּׁבֶת בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא שֶׁלּוֹ! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מוֹדֶה רַב בְּשֶׁבֶת, דְּמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ עַד שְׁעַת בַּגְרוּת – דַּאֲבוּהּ הָוֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Kamma 87b:2
[Bava Kamma 87b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/87b:2)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: הַחוֹבֵל בִּבְנוֹ גָּדוֹל – יִתֵּן לוֹ מִיָּד, בִּבְנוֹ קָטָן – יַעֲשֶׂה לוֹ סְגוּלָּה. הַחוֹבֵל בְּבִתּוֹ קְטַנָּה – פָּטוּר, וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא אֲחֵרִים שֶׁחָבְלוּ בָּהּ – חַיָּיבִין לִיתֵּן לְאָבִיהָ! הָכִי נָמֵי בְּשֶׁבֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Kamma 87b:3
[Bava Kamma 87b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/87b:3)

וּבִבְנוֹ גָּדוֹל יִתֵּן לוֹ מִיָּד? וּרְמִינְהוּ: הַחוֹבֵל בְּבָנָיו וּבִבְנוֹתָיו שֶׁל אֲחֵרִים, גְּדוֹלִים – יִתֵּן לָהֶם מִיָּד, קְטַנִּים – יַעֲשֶׂה לָהֶם סְגוּלָּה. בְּבָנָיו וּבִבְנוֹתָיו שֶׁלּוֹ – פָּטוּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Kamma 87b:4
[Bava Kamma 87b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/87b:4)

אָמְרִי: לָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן כְּשֶׁסְּמוּכִים עַל שֻׁלְחָנוֹ, כָּאן כְּשֶׁאֵין סְמוּכִין עַל שֻׁלְחָנוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bava Kamma 87b:5
[Bava Kamma 87b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/87b:5)

בְּמַאי אוֹקֵימְתַּהּ לְקַמַּיְיתָא – בְּשֶׁאֵין סְמוּכִין עַל שֻׁלְחָנוֹ? אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: הַחוֹבֵל בְּבִתּוֹ הַקְּטַנָּה – פָּטוּר; וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא אֲחֵרִים שֶׁחָבְלוּ בָּהּ – חַיָּיבִין לִיתֵּן לְאָבִיהָ. לְדִידַהּ בָּעֵי לְמִיתַּב לַהּ – דְּבַעְיָא מְזוֹנֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bava Kamma 87b:6
[Bava Kamma 87b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/87b:6)

וַאֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: יָכוֹל הָרַב לוֹמַר לָעֶבֶד ״עֲשֵׂה עִמִּי וְאֵינִי זָנָךְ״; הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּעֶבֶד כְּנַעֲנִי – דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: עֲבֵיד עֲבִידְתָּא כּוּלֵּי יוֹמָא, וּלְאוּרְתָּא זִיל סְחַר וֶאֱכוֹל; אֲבָל עֶבֶד עִבְרִי, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי טוֹב לוֹ עִמָּךְ״ – עִמְּךָ בְּמַאֲכָל, עִמְּךָ בְּמִשְׁתֶּה – לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן בִּתּוֹ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Bava Kamma 87b:7
[Bava Kamma 87b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/87b:7)

כִּדְאָמַר רָבָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב עוּלָּא: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְהַעְדָּפָה; הָכָא נָמֵי, לָא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְהַעְדָּפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Kamma 87b:8
[Bava Kamma 87b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/87b:8)

בְּמַאי אוֹקֵימְתַּהּ לְבָתְרָיְיתָא – בִּסְמוּכִין עַל שֻׁלְחָנוֹ? ״גְּדוֹלִים – יִתֵּן לָהֶם מִיָּד, קְטַנִּים – יַעֲשֶׂה לָהֶם סְגוּלָּה״, אַמַּאי? לַאֲבִיהֶם בָּעֵי לְמִיתַּב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?**


###### Bava Kamma 87b:9
[Bava Kamma 87b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/87b:9)

אָמְרִי: כִּי קָא קָפֵיד – בְּמִידֵּי דְּקָא חָסַר, בְּמִידֵּי דַּאֲתָא מֵעָלְמָא – לָא קָפֵיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Kamma 87b:10
[Bava Kamma 87b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/87b:10)

וְהָא מְצִיאָה, דְּמֵעָלְמָא קָאָתֵי לְהוּ, וְקָא קָפֵיד! אָמְרִי: רַוְוחָא דְּקָאָתֵי לְהוּ מֵעָלְמָא, וְלֵית לְהוּ צַעֲרָא דְּגוּפַיְיהוּ בְּגַוַּוהּ – קָפֵיד; אֲבָל חֲבָלָה, דְּאִית לְהוּ צַעֲרָא דְּגוּפַיְיהוּ, וּמֵעָלְמָא קָאָתֵי לְהוּ – לָא קָפֵיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Kamma 87b:11
[Bava Kamma 87b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/87b:11)

וְהָא הָתָם, דְּאִית לַהּ צַעֲרָא דְּגוּפָא, וּמֵעָלְמָא קָאָתֵי לַהּ, וְקָא קָפֵיד! דְּקָתָנֵי: וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא (אֲפִילּוּ) אֲחֵרִים שֶׁחָבְלוּ בָּהּ – חַיָּיבִין לִיתֵּן לְאָבִיהָ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?**


###### Bava Kamma 87b:12
[Bava Kamma 87b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/87b:12)

אָמְרִי: הָתָם, דְּגַבְרָא קַפְדָנָא הוּא, דְּהָא אֵין סְמוּכִין עַל שֻׁלְחָנוֹ – אֲפִילּוּ בְּמִידֵּי דְּאָתֵי לְהוּ מֵעָלְמָא קָפֵיד. הָכָא, דְּלָאו גַּבְרָא קַפְדָנָא הוּא, דְּהָא סְמוּכִין עַל שֻׁלְחָנוֹ; כִּי קָא קָפֵיד – בְּמִידֵּי דְּקָא חָסַר לֵיהּ, בְּמִידֵּי דְּאָתֵי לְהוּ מֵעָלְמָא – לָא קָפֵיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bava Kamma 87b:13
[Bava Kamma 87b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/87b:13)

מַאי ״סְגוּלָּה״? רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה. רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: דִּיקְלָא דְּאָכֵיל מִינֵּיהּ תַּמְרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bava Kamma 87b:14
[Bava Kamma 87b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/87b:14)

וְכֵן אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לֹא זִכְּתָה תּוֹרָה לָאָב – אֶלָּא שֶׁבַח נְעוּרִים בִּלְבָד. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ פְּצִיעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bava Kamma 87b:15
[Bava Kamma 87b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/87b:15)

פְּצִיעָה סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לָא קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ אֶלָּא חֲבָלָה –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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,**