Bava Kamma

So also did R. Judah exempt him from all the judgments of the Torah. What is the reason of R. Judah? — Scripture says: Then the congregation shall judge between the smiter and the avenger of blood according to these ordinances,  whoever is subject to the law of the 'smiter' and 'the avenger of blood' is subject to judgments, but he  who is not subject to the law of the 'smiter' and the 'avenger of blood' is not subject to judgments. Another [Baraitha] taught: R. Judah.says: 'A blind person is not subject to [the law of] Degradation. So also did R. Judah exempt him from all commandments stated in the Torah.' R. Shisha the son of R. Idi said: The reason of R. Judah was because Scripture says: Now this is the commandment, the statutes and the ordinances;  he who is subject to the 'ordinances' is subject to 'commandments' and 'statutes', but he who is not subject to 'ordinances' is not subject to 'commandments' and 'statutes'. R. Joseph stated:  Formerly I used to Say: If someone would tell me that the halachah is in accordance with R. Judah who declared that a blind person is exempt from the commandments, I would make a festive occasion for our Rabbis, because though I am not enjoined  I still perform commandments, but now that I have heard the statement of R. Hanina, as R. Hanina indeed said  that greater is the reward of those who being enjoined do [good deeds] than of those who without being enjoined [but merely of their own free will] do [good deeds], if someone would tell me that the halachah is not in accordance with R. Judah I would make a festive occasion for our Rabbis, because if I am enjoined to perform commandments the reward will be greater for me. MISHNAH. ON THIS [POINT] THE LAW FOR MAN IS MORE SEVERE THAN THE LAW FOR CATTLE, VIZ., THAT MAN HAS TO PAY FOR DEPRECIATION, PAIN, HEALING, LOSS OF TIME AND DEGRADATION;  AND HE PAYS ALSO FOR THE VALUE OF EMBRYOS,  WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF CATTLE THERE IS NO PAYMENT FOR ANYTHING BUT DEPRECIATION,  AND THERE IS EXEMPTION FROM [PAYING] THE VALUE OF EMBRYOS.  ONE WHO STRIKES HIS FATHER AND HIS MOTHER WITHOUT, HOWEVER, MAKING A BRUISE ON THEM,  OR ONE WHO INJURED HIS FELLOW ON THE DAY OF ATONEMENT  IS LIABLE FOR ALL [THE FIVE ITEMS]. ONE WHO INJURES A HEBREW SLAVE  IS SIMILARLY LIABLE FOR ALL OF THEM, WITH THE EXCEPTION, HOWEVER, OF LOSS OF TIME IF HE IS HIS OWN SLAVE. ONE WHO INJURES A CANAANITE SLAVE  BELONGING TO ANOTHER PERSON IS [SIMILARLY] LIABLE FOR ALL [THE FIVE ITEMS]. R. JUDAH, HOWEVER, SAYS THAT NO DEGRADATION IS PAID IN THE CASE OF [CANAANITE] SLAVES. A DEAF-MUTE, AN IDIOT AND A MINOR ARE AWKWARD TO DEAL WITH, AS HE WHO INJURES THEM IS LIABLE [TO PAY], WHEREAS IF THEY INJURE OTHERS THEY ARE EXEMPT. [SO ALSO] A SLAVE AND A [MARRIED] WOMAN ARE AWKWARD TO DEAL WITH, AS HE WHO INJURES THEM IS LIABLE [TO PAY], WHEREAS IF THEY INJURE OTHERS THEY ARE EXEMPT,  THOUGH THEY MAY HAVE TO PAY AT A LATER DATE; FOR IF THE WOMAN WAS DIVORCED  OR THE SLAVE MANUMITTED,  THEY WOULD BE LIABLE TO PAY. HE WHO SMITES HIS FATHER OR HIS MOTHER MAKING ALSO A BRUISE ON THEM  OR HE WHO INJURES ANOTHER ON THE SABBATH  IS EXEMPT FROM ALL [THE FIVE ITEMS], FOR HE IS CHARGED WITH A CAPITAL OFFENCE.  [SO ALSO] HE WHO INJURES A CANAANITE SLAVE OF HIS OWN IS EXEMPT FROM ALL [THE ITEMS]. GEMARA. R. Eleazar inquired of Rab: If one injures a minor daughter of another person, to whom should [the payment for] the injury go?  Shall we say that since the Divine Law bestowed upon the father [the right to] the income of [his daughter during the days of her] youth,  the payment for an injury should also be his, the reason being that her value was surely decreased [by the injury], or [shall we say that it was] perhaps only the income of youth  that the Divine Law granted him, since if he wishes to hand her over [in marriage e.g.,] to one afflicted with leprosy he could hand her over,  whereas the payment for injury might not have been granted to him by the Divine Law, since if he wishes to injure her he would not have had the right to injure her?