1)

(a)In a second Beraisa, Rebbi Yehudah maintains that a blind man is not subject to shame. And he learns ...

1. ... from the Pasuk in Ma'sei "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 Misas Beis-Din), is not included in Mishpatim (the Dinim connected with monetary laws) either (see Tosfos DH 've'Chein').

2. ... in a third Beraisa, from the Pasuk in Va'eschanan "ve'Zos ha'Mitzvah, ha'Chukim ve'ha'Mishpatim" that whoever is Patur from Mishpatim is also Patur from Mitzvos and Chukim.

(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.

(c)He changed his mind however, when he heard what Rebbi Chanina said 'Gadol Metzuveh ve'Oseh 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.

2)

(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 Shor ba'Amiso'.

(b)The Parshah that obligates the five things begins with the words "Ki Yinatzu Anashim", from which we Darshen "Anashim", 've'Lo Shevarim', exempting Shor from paying for D'mei V'lados (should it gore a woman and kill her unborn babies).

(c)The Tana need to teach us that both someone who strikes his parents without causing a wound, and someone who wounds a person on Yom Kipur are Chayav to pay. this because we would otherwise have thought that just like someone who is Chayav Misah bi'Yedei Adam is Patur from paying, so too is someone who is Chayav Kares.

(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 Sheves.

3)

(a)According to the Tana Kama, if someone wounds an Eved Kena'ani, he pays all five things. Rebbi Yehudah says 'Ein la'Avadim Boshes.

(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 Kena'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 remain Chayav 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 are Patur from paying, because they are Chayav Misah, and we have a principle 'Kam Lei bede'Rabah Mineh' (someone who is Chayav a more stricter punishment is Patur from a more lenient one).

2. ... his own Eved Kena'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]).

4)

(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 grants a father 'Shevach Ne'urim', the right to marry her off to whoever he wishes and to receive 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 Shevach 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 Shevach Ne'urim Bi'levad!'

5)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that someone who wounds his own Eved Ivri is Patur from paying Sheves because it follows the Din of Ma'aseh Yadav, which belong to the master.

(b)Abaye reconciles Rav's current ruling ('Lo Zachsah Torah le'Av Ela Shevach Ne'urim Bil'vad') with the Mishnah by differentiating between Nezek and Sheves, based on the father's rights to whatever his daughter produces until she becomes a Bogeres.

6)

(a)Another Beraisa obligates a father who wound one's own son when he is already a Gadol to pay him immediately; whereas if he does so when he is still a Katan it obligates him to invest the money that he owes him for when he grows up (which will explained shortly).

(b)And the Tana rules that ...

1. ... a man who wounds his own daughter who is a Ketanah is Patur from paying ...

2. ... whereas someone else who wounds her must pay him.

(c)Rav reconciles his earlier ruling ('Lo Zachsah Torah ... ') with this Beraisa by establishing it too, by Sheves (whereas he is speaking about Nezek, as we explained earlier).

(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 grants a father the rights to the Ma'aseh Yadayim of his daughter, but not of his son.

7)

(a)Another Beraisa draws the same distinction between Reuven who wounds Shimon's son when he is already a Gadol and one who does so whilst 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 paying.

(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.

8)

(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 if he wounds her, and b. why he receives the Nezek when others wound her? Surely she needs to eat?

(b)This problem will not necessarily exist in the case of an Eved Kena'ani according to those who permit the master to say to him 'Asei Imi ve'Eini Zancha' ('Work for me but I will not feed you') ...

(c)... in which case the Eved Kena'ani will 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 Kena'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.

9)

(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 wife produces enough for her own basic needs, and the money in question will be used for luxuries.

(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 Beraisa rules that that the father invests the money on their behalf because we assume that the father will not object to money that comes from external sources goes to them.

(d)Despite that, whatever they find, goes to their father because it came to them without pain, unlike Nezek, which caused them to suffer.

(e)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 if they suffered in the process.

10)

(a)We learned earlier that, if a father wounds his son who is a Katan, he invests the money for when he grows up. Rav Chisda explains this to mean that he purchases a Sefer-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.

11)

(a)Reish Lakish concurs with Rav, who learned above 'Lo Zachsah Torah le'Av Ela Shevach Ne'urim Bil'vad'. When Rebbi Yochanan says 'Afilu Petzi'ah' we think that he means even if someone struck her and hurt her, without causing a wound, goes to the father too.

(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.