## Bava Kamma Daf 43a

###### Bava Kamma 43a:1
[Bava Kamma 43a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/43a:1)

אוֹ גִיּוֹרֶת – זָכָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
and subsequently married a Canaanite slave who had also been emancipated, and became pregnant from him, **or** if she was **a convert** who became pregnant from a male convert, and both the husband and wife died without heirs, the assailant **gains** by not having to pay, since there are no heirs. In any event, it is explicitly stated in the *baraita* that the beneficiary of the compensation due to her, including that which she would have received during her lifetime, is not her husband but rather her heirs.


###### Bava Kamma 43a:2
[Bava Kamma 43a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/43a:2)

אָמַר רַבָּה: בִּגְרוּשָׁה. וְכֵן אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: בִּגְרוּשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba said:** This *baraita* relates **to a divorcée;** since they got divorced, the husband does not inherit from her. **Likewise, Rav Naḥman said:** The *baraita* relates **to a divorcée.**


###### Bava Kamma 43a:3
[Bava Kamma 43a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/43a:3)

אָמְרִי: גְּרוּשָׁה נָמֵי תִּיפְלוֹג בִּדְמֵי וְלָדוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **said** in response: If she is **a divorcée,** she **should also share in** the **compensation for** the miscarried **offspring.** Why should her ex-husband receive the full payment?


###### Bava Kamma 43a:4
[Bava Kamma 43a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/43a:4)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הַתּוֹרָה זִכְּתָה דְּמֵי וְלָדוֹת לַבַּעַל, אֲפִילּוּ בָּא עָלֶיהָ בִּזְנוּת. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא ״כַּאֲשֶׁר יָשִׁית עָלָיו בַּעַל הָאִשָּׁה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said: The Torah awarded the** payment of **compensation for** miscarried **offspring to the husband, even if he** is not actually her legal husband but rather **engaged in licentious sexual intercourse with her.** Although he has no rights to her property, the damages for the miscarried offspring belong to him alone, as he is the father of the offspring. **What is the reason? The verse states: “As the husband [*ba’al*] of the woman shall impose upon him”** (Exodus 21:22), indicating that damages are not collected by the woman, but by the man who engaged in intercourse [*ba’al*] with her, impregnating her. Therefore, if they got divorced, the ex-husband receives the payment.


###### Bava Kamma 43a:5
[Bava Kamma 43a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/43a:5)

וְנוֹקְמַהּ לְרַבָּה כְּגוֹן שֶׁגָּבוּ מָעוֹת, וּלְרַב נַחְמָן כְּגוֹן שֶׁגָּבוּ קַרְקַע!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Why do Rabba and Rav Naḥman explain this *baraita* as referring to a divorcée? They could have answered, in accordance with their own opinions elsewhere (*Bava Batra* 124b), that it is referring to payments that are not considered to have been in the woman’s possession during her lifetime, but rather are considered property due to the woman, which her husband does not inherit. **Let us establish** this *baraita*, according **to Rabba,** as referring to a case **where they collected money** for the damage and pain, **and** according **to Rav Naḥman, where they collected land.**


###### Bava Kamma 43a:6
[Bava Kamma 43a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/43a:6)

דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: גָּבוּ קַרְקַע – יֵשׁ לוֹ, גָּבוּ מָעוֹת – אֵין לוֹ. וְרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: גָּבוּ מָעוֹת – יֵשׁ לוֹ, גָּבוּ קַרְקַע – אֵין לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As** with regard to the right of a firstborn to receive a double portion of the inheritance of his father, he receives a double portion only of the property possessed by his father, not of the property due to him. In a case where money was owed to the father, **Rabba says:** If the heirs **collected** the debt from **land,** the firstborn **has** the right to a double portion, since it is considered property that was already in the father’s possession. If **they collected money, he does not have** a double portion, as it is considered property due to the father. **And Rav Naḥman says:** If **they collected money, he has** a double portion, and if **they collected land, he does not have** a double portion.


###### Bava Kamma 43a:7
[Bava Kamma 43a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/43a:7)

הָנֵי מִילֵּי לִבְנֵי מַעְרְבָא – אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **That statement** applies **according to the residents of the West,** i.e., Eretz Yisrael, **in accordance with** the opinion **of the Rabbis,** who limit the rights of a firstborn to his father’s property to the extent that they hold he does not receive a double portion of any appreciation in the property occurring after his father’s death.


###### Bava Kamma 43a:8
[Bava Kamma 43a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/43a:8)

כִּי קָאָמְרִי הָכָא – כְּרַבִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
By contrast, **when they state** that this *baraita* **here** relates to a divorcée, it is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi that the firstborn receives a double portion even in the appreciation of the property occurring after the father’s death. According to this opinion, clearly everything due to the father is considered to be in his possession, whether he receives his compensation in money or in land. The same applies to a husband, who inherits the rights to inherit compensation for damage and pain inflicted on his wife. That is why Rabba and Rav Naḥman had to interpret this *baraita* as relating to a divorcée.


###### Bava Kamma 43a:9
[Bava Kamma 43a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/43a:9)

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: שׁוֹר שֶׁהֵמִית אֶת הָעֶבֶד שֶׁלֹּא בְּכַוָּונָה – פָּטוּר מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים שְׁקָלִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כֶּסֶף שְׁלֹשִׁים שְׁקָלִים יִתֵּן לַאדֹנָיו, וְהַשּׁוֹר יִסָּקֵל״ – כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהַשּׁוֹר בִּסְקִילָה, הַבְּעָלִים מְשַׁלְּמִין שְׁלֹשִׁים שְׁקָלִים; אֵין הַשּׁוֹר בִּסְקִילָה, אֵין הַבְּעָלִים מְשַׁלְּמִין שְׁלֹשִׁים שְׁקָלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says:** With regard to **an ox that killed** a Canaanite **slave unintentionally,** the owner is **exempt from** paying the fine of **thirty shekels, as it is stated: “He shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned”** (Exodus 21:32). It is derived from the verse that the liability to pay thirty shekels is dependent on the stoning of the ox; **whenever the ox is** liable **to** be killed by **stoning, the owner pays thirty shekels** as compensation for the damage. If **the ox is not** liable **to** be killed by **stoning,** e.g., if it killed unintentionally, **the owner does not pay thirty shekels.**


###### Bava Kamma 43a:10
[Bava Kamma 43a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/43a:10)

אָמַר רַבָּה: שׁוֹר שֶׁהֵמִית בֶּן חוֹרִין שֶׁלֹּא בְּכַוָּונָה – פָּטוּר מִכּוֹפֶר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הַשּׁוֹר יִסָּקֵל, וְגַם בְּעָלָיו יוּמָת. אִם כֹּפֶר יוּשַׁת עָלָיו״ – כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהַשּׁוֹר בִּסְקִילָה – בְּעָלִים מְשַׁלְּמִין כּוֹפֶר, אֵין הַשּׁוֹר בִּסְקִילָה – אֵין בְּעָלִים מְשַׁלְּמִין כּוֹפֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, **Rabba says:** With regard to **an ox that killed a freeman unintentionally,** its owner **is exempt from** paying **ransom; as it is stated: “The ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death. If a ransom is laid on him”** (Exodus 21:29–30). This indicates that **whenever the ox is** liable **to** be killed by **stoning the owner pays ransom;** and if **the ox is not** liable **to** be killed by **stoning the owner does not pay ransom.**


###### Bava Kamma 43a:11
[Bava Kamma 43a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/43a:11)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: ״הֵמִית שׁוֹרִי אֶת פְּלוֹנִי״, אוֹ ״שׁוֹרוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי״ – הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ. מַאי, לָאו כּוֹפֶר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye raised an objection to** Rabba’s statement from a mishna: If a person admits: **My ox killed so-and-so, or:** My ox killed **the ox of so-and-so, this** owner **pays based on his own** admission (*Ketubot* 41a). This cannot be referring to the payment of a fine, as a person who admits his responsibility for an act incurring a fine is exempt from paying the fine. Clearly, it must be referring to a payment for which one can render himself liable through admission. **What, is it not** referring to the payment of **ransom?** If so, this proves that payment of ransom is not dependent on whether the ox is liable to be killed by stoning, as the ox cannot be killed based on its owner’s admission alone.


###### Bava Kamma 43a:12
[Bava Kamma 43a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/43a:12)

לָא, דָּמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** it is referring to payment of the monetary **value** of the victim. Although he is not liable to pay ransom, as the ox is not killed, nevertheless, since by his own admission his ox caused damage, he is liable to pay damages.


###### Bava Kamma 43a:13
[Bava Kamma 43a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/43a:13)

אִי דָּמִים, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: ״הֵמִית שׁוֹרִי אֶת עַבְדּוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי״ – אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ. וְאִי דָּמִים, אַמַּאי לָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye challenged this answer: **If** it is referring to the **value** of the victim, **say the latter clause** of that mishna: If a person admits: **My ox killed the** Canaanite **slave of so-and-so, he does not pay based on his own** admission. **And if,** as you claim, the mishna is referring to the **value** of the victim, not to the thirty-shekel fine, **why** should he **not** pay?


###### Bava Kamma 43a:14
[Bava Kamma 43a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/43a:14)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, יָכֵילְנָא לְשַׁנּוֹיֵי לָךְ: רֵישָׁא דָּמִים, וְסֵיפָא קְנָס; מִיהוּ שִׁנּוּיָיא דְחִיקָא לָא מְשַׁנֵּינָא לָךְ. אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי דָּמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba **said to** Abaye: **I could have answered you** by saying that **the former clause,** which discusses an ox killing a freeman, is referring to the **value** of the victim, **and the latter clause,** which relates to an ox that gored a slave, is referring to payment of the thirty-shekel **fine. But I will not answer you with a forced answer.** Instead, I will answer as follows: Both **this** clause **and that** clause refer to the **value** of the victim;