Bava Kamma

— He replied: 'The Torah did not bestow upon the father [any right] save to the income of youth alone.' An objection was raised  [from the following]: 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!  — Abaye replied: Rab surely agrees regarding the item of Loss of Time, as the work of her hands during the period preceding the age of womanhood  belongs to her father. A [further] objection was raised [from the following]: 'If one injures his son who has already come of age  he has to compensate him straight away, but if his son was still a minor  he must make for him a safe investment [out of the compensation money], while he who injures his minor daughter is exempt, and what is more, if others injure her they are liable to pay the compensation to her father'?  — The rulings here similarly refer to Loss of Time. Is it really a fact that in the case of a son who has already come of age the father has to compensate him straight away? [If so,] a contradiction could be pointed out [from the following:] 'If one injures the sons and daughters of others, if they have already come of age, he has to pay them straight away, but if they are still minors he should make for them a safe investment [out of the compensation money], whereas where the sons and daughters were his own, he would be exempt [altogether]'!  — It may, however, be said that there is no difficulty, as the ruling here [stating exemption] refers to a case where the children still reclined at the father's table,  whereas the ruling there  deals with a case where they did not recline at his table. But how could you explain the former teaching to refer to a case where they did not recline at his table? For if so, read the concluding clause: 'Whereas he who injures his minor daughter is exempt, and what is more, even others who injure her are liable to pay the compensation to her father.' Why not pay her, since she has to maintain herself? For even according to the view  that a master may say to his slave, 'Work with me though I am not prepared to maintain you,' surely this applies only to a Canaanite slave to whom the master can say, 'Do your work during the day and in the evenings you can go out and look about for food,'  whereas in the case of a Hebrew slave in connection with whom it is written, Because he fareth well with thee,  implying 'with thee in food and with thee in drink',  this could certainly not be maintained; how much the more so then in the case of his own daughter?  — As stated  [in another connection] by Raba the son of R. 'Ulla, that the ruling applies only to the surplus [of the amount of her earnings over the cost of maintenance], so also here in this case this ruling applies only to the surplus [of the amount of compensation over the cost of maintenance]. You have then explained the latter statement [that there is exemption in the case of his own children] as dealing with a case where the children reclined at his table. Why then [in the case of children of other persons] is it stated that 'if they had already come of age he has to pay them straight away, but if they were still minors he should make for them a safe investment [out of the compensation money]? Why should the compensation not be made to their father?  — It may, however, be said that the father would be particular only in a matter which would cause him a loss,  whereas in regard to a profit coming from outside  he would not mind [it going to the children]. But what about a find which is similarly a profit coming from outside, and the father still is particular about it?  — It may be said that he is particular even about a profit which comes from outside provided no actual pain was caused to the children through it,  whereas in the matter of compensation for injury where the children suffered actual pain and where the profit comes from outside he does not mind. But what of the other case  where the daughter suffered actual pain and where there was a profit coming from outside and the father nevertheless was particular about it as stated 'What is more, even others who injure her are liable to pay the compensation to her father'? — It may still be said that it was only in that case  where the father was an eccentric person who would not have his children at his table that he could be expected to care for the matter of profit coming even from outside, whereas in the case here  where he was not an eccentric person, as his children joined him at his table it is only regarding a matter which would cause him a loss that he would be particular, but he would not mind about a matter of profit coming from outside. What is meant by 'a safe investment'?  — R. Hisda said: [To buy] a scroll of the Law.  Rabbah  son of R. Huna said: [To buy] a palm tree, from which he gets a profit in the shape of dates. Resh Lakish similarly said that the Torah did not bestow upon the father any right save to the income of youth alone. R. Johanan however said: 'Even regarding wounding.' How can you think about wounding?  Even R. Eleazar did not raise a question  except regarding an injury