- Rebbe Yehudah’s ruling exempting a blind person from mitzvos, and Rav Yosef’s reaction
Rebbe Yehudah exempts a blind person from בושת, exile (for unintentional murder), malkus, and capital punishment, as well as all monetary laws. Another Baraisa adds: וכן היה רבי יהודה פוטרו מכל מצות האמורות בתורה – and so Rebbe Yehudah would exempt him from all mitzvos in the Torah. This is because the Torah writes ואלה המצות החקים והמשפטים together, teaching: כל שישנו במשפטים ישנו במצות וחקים – anyone who is included in [monetary] laws is included in the commandments and statutes, but anyone excluded from monetary laws is not included in the mitzvos. Rav Yosef, who was blind, commented that initially, he would say that if someone would tell him the halachah is like Rebbe Yehudah, he would make a holiday for the Rabbis, because he performs mitzvos voluntarily. But after hearing Rebbe Chanina’s statement, that גדול המצווה ועושה ממי שאינו מצווה ועושה – one who is commanded and performs it is greater than one who is not commanded and performs it, he said that if someone would tell him the halachah is not like Rebbe Yehudah, he would make a holiday for the Rabbis, דכי מפקדינא אית לי אגרא טפי – because when I am commanded, I have more reward.
- If a קטנה’s damages are awarded to her or her father
Rebbe Elazar asked Rav: החובל בבת קטנה של אחרים – If one wounds the minor daughter of others, חבלה למי – to whom is the injury payment given? Do we say כיון דאקני ליה רחמנא שבח נעורים לאב – since the Torah awarded all the gains of her naarus to the father, he also receives the injury payment, since her value (as a potential אמה עבריה) was diminished? Or do we say that he only receives gains such as her kiddushin money, because he can marry her off to whomever he chooses, but not injury money, since he is prohibited from injuring her? Rav responded that the father does not receive her damage payments. Later, Reish Lakish says the same, but Rebbe Yochanan says the father does receive her damage payments, where her selling value as an אמה עבריה is diminished. Rav is challenged from the Mishnah which teaches that if someone injures his own עבד עברי, he pays him all damage payments except for שבת (unemployment), since he owns the servant’s earnings. The father should receive his daughter’s שבת for the same reason!? Abaye answers that Rav agrees that the father receives שבת.
- When children receive payment for their injuries
A Baraisa states: החובל בבנו גדול יתן לו מיד – If one injures his adult son, he shall give him payment immediately. If he injures his minor son, he makes a trust for him. This is contradicted by another Baraisa, which states that a father is exempt when he injures his children!? The Gemara answers: כאן כשסמוכים על שלחנו – Here the second Baraisa is where they are dependent on [the father’s] table (i.e., he supports them), so he is not liable for injuring his child [Tosafos explains this refers to שבת, because he is entitled to their earnings]. כאן כשאין סמוכין על שלחנו – Here in the first Baraisa is where they are not dependent on his table. The Gemara asks, if the second Baraisa is where his children are dependent on him, so he is exempt when he injured them, why does that Baraisa say that if someone else injures them, they receive the payment (and not the father)? It answers that the father only insists on his right to their unemployment where it would cost him (i.e., where he would pay for injuring them), במידי דאתא מעלמא לא קפיד – but with something which comes from the outside, he does not mind. Although he insists on keeping their findings, that is a gain for which they did not physically suffer, as opposed to an injury.
