DAF YOMI | Bava Kama 87
DAF YOMI SUMMARY | Bava Kama 87
דף פ"ז
A blind man is liable for humiliation
Our Mishnah teaches in the first clause that one who embarrasses a blind or sleeping man is liable to pay for his humiliation. The second clause mentions the exemption for a sleeping man who humiliates someone else and leaves out a blind man. Apparently our Mishnah holds a blind man liable for humiliation. The גמרא infers from this that our Mishnah does not follow the opinion of רבי יהודה who exempts a blind man. He learns a גזירת שוה from עדים זוממים where it uses similar terminology. It says concerning the liability for humiliation: וקצותה את כפה לא תחוס עינך do not have mercy on a woman who humiliated a man and concerning false witnesses it uses the same term לא תחוס עינך do not have mercy, prosecute them. Certainly a blind man cannot be a עד זומם. He is unable to testify. Therefore the same exemption applies to humiliation.
As a matter of fact the גמרא states according to רבי יהודה the exemption extends to all monetary liability. In addition, he cannot be a judge, plaintiff or defendant. He is not exiled for killing inadvertently, lashed or even executed for murder. He is actually exempt from performing any mitzvahs. The ראשונים debate whether he is obligated מדרבנן.
Although some פוסקים adopt the view of the חכמים, רבי יהודה's view is not dismissed entirely.
The next Mishnah discusses certain parameters for liability for damages:
1. The first law compares the difference between a human and an animal. An animal is liable only for damages and not for a miscarriage of a fetus whereas a human is liable for five forms of compensation and for a miscarried fetus.
2. The second law differentiates between one who injures a parent without wounding them who is liable for damages versus one who wounded them who is exempt because of קים ליה בדרבה מיניה.
3. One who injures someone on Yom Kippur is liable for damages. There is no קים ליה בדרבה מיניה. He is liable to כרת excision not מיתת בית דין. However if he damaged him on שבת he is exempt.
4. One who injures a Jewish or Canaanite slave pays all forms of compensation except unemployment if the master injures him. According to רבי יהודה slaves are not entitled to humiliation.
5. The Mishnah differentiates between the deaf minor or mute. One who injures them pays compensation. They do not pay. They are not mentally competent. Married women and slaves are not independent and therefore are exempt for damages only as long as they have no money of their own.
A father's right to his minor and נערה daughter's compensation
The גמרא questions his right to her compensation for damages similar to his rights to her earnings and marriage. The question does not refer to compensation for medical expenses, pain or humiliation. The question refers to personal injury and unemployment compensation. He suffers a loss since he is entitled to her earnings and her money for marriage. Her injury earns him less. The Torah teaches בנעוריה בית אביה that he is entitled to her כסף קידושין her betrothal and earnings.
However רב differentiates the two laws. He can marry her off to who benefits him the most but he is not entitled to injure her. The גמרא proves from the משנה just as a עבד עברי is not entitled to unemployment if his master injures him, she should not be entitled as well since her employment is his. Therefore the גמרא understands that רב entitled her only to damages. Unemployment goes to the father.
Father’s liability for injuring children
The גמרא differentiates between children he supports and children he does not support. Concerning sons that he supports he has to pay four out of the five. Unemployment he does not pay. If he does not support them he has to pay their unemployment. The father is entitled to his minor daughter’s unemployment even if he does not support her. However this law seems strange. How will she support herself! It is her surplus income above what she needs to support herself similar to a עבד עברי who does not have to work for his master without being supported.
Third party injury to children
Money that does not come from the father’s pocket, as long as he is not stingy, he does not begrudge them collecting in a case where they suffered. In the case of a lost object he would begrudge them since they did not suffer in the process.
