## Bava Kamma Daf 49a

###### Bava Kamma 49a:1
[Bava Kamma 49a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/49a:1)

אִם כֵּן, מִשֶּׁהָאִשֶּׁה יוֹלֶדֶת מַשְׁבַּחַת! אֶלָּא שָׁמִין אֶת הַוְּלָדוֹת כַּמָּה הֵן יָפִין, וְנוֹתֵן לַבַּעַל. וְאִם אֵין לַהּ בַּעַל – נוֹתֵן לְיוֹרְשָׁיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If so,** the consequences would be absurd, as **when a woman gives birth** her value **increases. Rather,** the court **appraises how much the offspring are worth, and** the one liable for the damage **gives** that amount **to the husband. And if she does not have a husband,** e.g., her husband died, he **gives** the money **to his heirs.**


###### Bava Kamma 49a:2
[Bava Kamma 49a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/49a:2)

הָיְתָה שִׁפְחָה וְנִשְׁתַּחְרְרָה, אוֹ גִיּוֹרֶת – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the pregnant woman **was** a Canaanite **maidservant and** then **she was emancipated, or a convert,** and she was married to an emancipated Canaanite slave or to a convert who died without any heirs, the one who caused the damage is **exempt** from paying compensation for miscarried offspring. This is because this payment is made specifically to the husband, not to the woman.


###### Bava Kamma 49a:3
[Bava Kamma 49a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/49a:3)

**גְּמָ׳** טַעְמָא דְּמִתְכַּוֵּין לַחֲבֵירוֹ, הָא מִתְכַּוֵּין לָאִשָּׁה – מְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵי וְלָדוֹת. לֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה – דְּאָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: שְׁווֹרִים שֶׁנִּתְכַּוְּונוּ לָאִשָּׁה – פְּטוּרִים מִדְּמֵי וְלָדוֹת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The first clause of the mishna indicates that **the reason** the owner is exempt from paying compensation for the offspring when an ox unintentionally gores a pregnant woman is specifically **that it was intending to** gore **another** ox. By inference, if it **was intending to** gore **the woman,** the owner **pays compensation for** miscarried **offspring. Shall we say** that this **should be a conclusive refutation** of the opinion **of Rav Adda bar Ahava, as Rav Adda bar Ahava says:** With regard to **oxen that intended to** gore **a woman** and then did so, the owners are **exempt** from paying **compensation for** miscarried **offspring?**


###### Bava Kamma 49a:4
[Bava Kamma 49a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/49a:4)

אָמַר לְךָ רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: הוּא הַדִּין דַּאֲפִילּוּ נִתְכַּוְּונוּ לָאִשָּׁה נָמֵי פְּטוּרִים מִדְּמֵי וְלָדוֹת; וְהָא דְּקָתָנֵי: ״שׁוֹר שֶׁהָיָה מִתְכַּוֵּין לַחֲבֵירוֹ״ – אַיְּידֵי דְּקָא בָּעֵי לְמִיתְנָא סֵיפָא: ״אָדָם שֶׁהָיָה מִתְכַּוֵּין לַחֲבֵירוֹ״ – דְּהָכִי כְּתִיב קְרָא, קָתָנֵי רֵישָׁא נָמֵי: ״שׁוֹר שֶׁהָיָה מִתְכַּוֵּין לַחֲבֵירוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that **Rav Adda bar Ahava** could have **said to you: The same is true, that even** if the oxen **intended to** gore **the woman,** the owners are **also exempt from** paying **compensation for** miscarried **offspring.** As for **that which is taught** in the mishna: **An ox that was intending to** gore **another** ox, it **is** taught this way **since it wants to teach the latter clause: A person that was intending to** injure **another** person, **as this** case is **written** explicitly in **the verse:** “And if men struggle and hurt a pregnant woman and her offspring emerge” (Exodus 21:22). In the case in the verse, the assailant intended to injure another person but injured the woman instead. Therefore, the mishna **also teaches the first clause** in that style: **An ox that was intending to** gore **another** ox.


###### Bava Kamma 49a:5
[Bava Kamma 49a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/49a:5)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: שׁוֹר שֶׁנָּגַח אֶת הַשִּׁפְחָה, וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ – מְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵי וְלָדוֹת. מַאי טַעְמָא? חֲמָרְתָּא מְעַבַּרְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא דְּאַזֵּיק, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״שְׁבוּ לָכֶם פֹּה עִם הַחֲמוֹר״ – עַם הַדּוֹמֶה לַחֲמוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa says:** In the case of **an ox that gored** a Canaanite **maidservant, and her offspring emerged** due to miscarriage, the owner **pays compensation for** miscarried **offspring. What is the reason?** The ox **injured a mere pregnant donkey.** With regard to the matter of compensation for offspring, who would be the property of the master were they to be born, a Canaanite slave is considered property of the master. **As** the **verse states** that Abraham addressed Eliezer, who was a Canaanite, by saying: **“You remain here with [*im*] the donkey”** (Genesis 22:5), on which the Sages expound that he was alluding to the idea that Eliezer is of **a people [*am*] that is similar to a donkey.** Therefore, the case of an ox goring a Canaanite maidservant is not included in the Torah’s exemption from paying compensation for miscarried offspring.


###### Bava Kamma 49a:6
[Bava Kamma 49a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/49a:6)

כֵּיצַד מְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵי וְלָדוֹת. ״דְּמֵי וְלָדוֹת״?! ״שְׁבַח וְלָדוֹת״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! הָכִי נָמֵי קָאָמַר: כֵּיצַד מְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵי וְלָדוֹת וּשְׁבַח וְלָדוֹת – שָׁמִין אֶת הָאִשָּׁה כַּמָּה הִיא יָפָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא יָלָדָה, וְכַמָּה הִיא יָפָה מִשֶּׁיָּלָדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **How does he pay compensation for** miscarried **offspring?** The court appraises how much the value of the woman increased due to the offspring. The Gemara asks: Would this be a correct interpretation of the term: **Compensation for** miscarried **offspring?** If this is how the sum is calculated, the mishna **should have** stated: How does he pay **the increase** in value due to **the offspring?** The Gemara answers: **That is also what** the *tanna* **is saying: How does he pay compensation for** miscarried **offspring and the increase** in value due to **the offspring?** In other words, apart from evaluating the compensation for the miscarried offspring, the court also **appraises** the value **of the woman** by calculating **how much she** would be **worth** if sold as a maidservant**before giving birth, and how much she** would be **worth after giving birth.**


###### Bava Kamma 49a:7
[Bava Kamma 49a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/49a:7)

אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: אִם כֵּן, מִשֶּׁהָאִשֶּׁה יוֹלֶדֶת מַשְׁבַּחַת! מַאי קָאָמַר? אָמַר רַבָּה, הָכִי קָאָמַר: וְכִי אִשָּׁה מַשְׁבַּחַת קוֹדֶם שֶׁתֵּלֵד יוֹתֵר מִלְּאַחַר שֶׁתֵּלֵד? וַהֲלֹא אִשָּׁה מַשְׁבַּחַת לְאַחַר שֶׁתֵּלֵד יוֹתֵר מִקּוֹדֶם שֶׁתֵּלֵד! אֶלָּא שָׁמִין אֶת הַוְּלָדוֹת, וְנוֹתְנִין לַבַּעַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: If so,** the consequences would be absurd, as **when a woman gives birth** her value **increases.** The Gemara asks: **What is** Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel **saying? Rabba said: This is** what he **is saying: But is** the monetary value of **a woman higher before she gives birth than after she gives birth? But isn’t** the opposite true, that the monetary value of **a woman** is **higher after giving birth than before giving birth,** since the concern for her dying during childbirth, which lowers her monetary value prior to giving birth, is no longer a concern? **Rather,** the court **appraises** the value of **the fetuses and gives** that amount **to the husband.**


###### Bava Kamma 49a:8
[Bava Kamma 49a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/49a:8)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: וְכִי אִשָּׁה מַשְׁבַּחַת קוֹדֶם שֶׁתֵּלֵד יוֹתֵר מִלְּאַחַר שֶׁתֵּלֵד? וַהֲלֹא אִשָּׁה מַשְׁבַּחַת לְאַחַר שֶׁתֵּלֵד יוֹתֵר מִקּוֹדֶם שֶׁתֵּלֵד! אֶלָּא שָׁמִין אֶת הַוְּלָדוֹת וְנוֹתְנִין לַבַּעַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**This** explanation of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s statement **is also taught** in a *baraita*: **But is** the monetary value of **a woman higher before she gives birth than after she gives birth? But isn’t** the opposite true, that the monetary value of **a woman** is **higher after giving birth than before giving birth? Rather,** the court **appraises** the value of **the fetuses and gives** that amount **to the husband.**


###### Bava Kamma 49a:9
[Bava Kamma 49a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/49a:9)

רָבָא אָמַר, הָכִי קָתָנֵי: וְכִי אִשָּׁה – לְמִי שֶׁיּוֹלֶדֶת מַשְׁבַּחַת, וְאֵין לְעַצְמָהּ בִּשְׁבַח וְלָדוֹת כְּלוּם? אֶלָּא שָׁמִין אֶת הַוְּלָדוֹת וְנוֹתְנִין לַבַּעַל, וּשְׁבַח וְלָדוֹת חוֹלְקִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: This is what** Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel **is teaching: But is** the value of **the woman higher** only **for the one for whom she gives birth,** i.e., her husband, **and she herself does not have any increase** in value **at all** due to the **offspring?** A pregnant woman’s monetary value is increased on account of her pregnancy, beyond the monetary value of the offspring. **Rather,** the court **appraises** the value of **the offspring and gives** it **to the husband. And** in addition, **the** husband and wife **divide the increase** in her value due to the **offspring.**


###### Bava Kamma 49a:10
[Bava Kamma 49a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/49a:10)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי, אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: וְכִי אִשָּׁה – לְמִי שֶׁיּוֹלֶדֶת מַשְׁבַּחַת, וְאֵין לְעַצְמָהּ בִּשְׁבַח וְלָדוֹת כְּלוּם? אֶלָּא שָׁמִין נֶזֶק בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, וְצַעַר בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ; וְשָׁמִין אֶת הַוְּלָדוֹת וְנוֹתְנִין לַבַּעַל, וּשְׁבַח וְלָדוֹת חוֹלְקִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**This** explanation of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s opinion **is also taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: But is** the value of **the woman higher** only **for the one for whom she gives birth,** i.e., her husband, **and she herself does not have any increase** in value **at all** due to the **offspring? Rather,** the court **appraises damage by itself and pain by itself, and appraises** the value of **the offspring and gives** it **to the husband, and the** husband and wife **divide the increase** in her value due to the **offspring.**


###### Bava Kamma 49a:11
[Bava Kamma 49a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/49a:11)

קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אַדְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: The opinion **of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel** in the first *baraita*, that the woman’s value decreases because of pregnancy, poses **a difficulty for that of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel** in the second *baraita*, that it increases.


###### Bava Kamma 49a:12
[Bava Kamma 49a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/49a:12)

לָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן בִּמְבַכֶּרֶת, כָּאן בְּשֶׁאֵינָהּ מְבַכֶּרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: This is **not difficult,** since each *baraita* is referring to a different case: **Here,** the first *baraita*, which stated that the woman’s value increases after giving birth, is referring **to** a woman **giving birth to** her **firstborn.** Her value decreases prior to birth out of concern that she might die in childbirth. **There,** the second *baraita*, which stated that her value increases due to pregnancy, is referring **to** a woman **who is not giving birth to** her **firstborn.**


###### Bava Kamma 49a:13
[Bava Kamma 49a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/49a:13)

וְרַבָּנַן דְּאָמְרִי שְׁבַח וְלָדוֹת נָמֵי לַבַּעַל – מַאי טַעְמָא? כְּדִתְנַן, מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ״ – אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהִיא הָרָה? מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״הָרָה״? לוֹמַר לָךְ: שְׁבַח הֵרָיוֹן לַבַּעַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what is the reason** of **the Rabbis** in the second *baraita*, **who say: The increase** in her value due to **the offspring** is **also** given **to the husband?** The Gemara answers: They derive it from a redundancy in a verse, **as we learned** in a *baraita*: The verse states: “And hurt a pregnant woman and her offspring emerge” (Exodus 21:22). **From the fact that it is stated: “And her offspring emerge,” don’t I know** by inference **that she was pregnant?** If so, **what** is the meaning when **the verse states: “A pregnant** woman,” and not just “a woman”? **To inform you** that even the **increase** in her value due to **the pregnancy** is given **to the husband.**


###### Bava Kamma 49a:14
[Bava Kamma 49a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/49a:14)

וְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, הַאי ״הָרָה״ מַאי דָּרֵישׁ בֵּיהּ? מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב, עַד שֶׁיַּכֶּנָּה כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הַהֵרָיוֹן. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא תֵּימָא כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הֵרָיוֹן מַמָּשׁ, אֶלָּא כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּסָלֵיק בֵּיהּ שִׁיחְמָא לְוָלָד. לְאַפּוֹקֵי יָד וָרֶגֶל – דְּלָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what** *halakha* **does Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel expound on this** extra word **“pregnant”?** The Gemara answers: **He requires it for that which is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says** that one who injures a woman **is never liable** to pay compensation for miscarried offspring **unless he strikes her opposite the womb,** i.e., on the abdomen. **Rav Pappa said: Do not say** that it must be **literally opposite the womb. Rather,** he is liable if she was struck **anywhere that the wound’s** impact could **reach the offspring,** i.e., any part of the torso, **to exclude** a wound to her **hand or foot, for which** he is **not** liable, since it could be argued that it was not the wound to the hand or foot that caused the miscarriage.


###### Bava Kamma 49a:15
[Bava Kamma 49a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/49a:15)

הָיְתָה שִׁפְחָה וְנִשְׁתַּחְרְרָה, אוֹ גִיּוֹרֶת – פָּטוּר. אָמַר רַבָּה: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁחָבַל בָּהּ בְּחַיֵּי הַגֵּר, וּמֵת הַגֵּר; דְּכֵיוָן דְּחָבַל בָּהּ בְּחַיֵּי הַגֵּר – זְכָה בְּהוּ גֵּר, וְכֵיוָן דְּמֵת הַגֵּר – זְכָה בְּהוּ מִן הַגֵּר. אֲבָל חָבַל בָּהּ לְאַחַר מִיתַת הַגֵּר – זָכְיָא לַהּ אִיהִי בְּגַוַּיְיהוּ, וּמִיחַיַּיב לְשַׁלּוֹמֵי לַהּ לְדִידַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If the pregnant woman **was a maidservant and** then **she was emancipated, or a convert,** he is **exempt** from the payment of damages for miscarried offspring. **Rabba says: They taught** this *halakha* **only** in a case **where one injured her during the lifetime of the convert,** i.e., her husband, **and the convert died** before the payment was given. The reason for this is **that since** the assailant **injured her during the lifetime of the convert, the convert acquires** the money, although it is still in the possession of the one liable for the damage. **And once the convert dies** without heirs, the money is ownerless. Therefore, the assailant **acquires it from the convert.** Since anyone can assume ownership of ownerless property, the assailant, who already possesses the money, becomes the owner. **But if he injured her after the convert had died, she acquires** the money, **and he must pay the woman herself.**


###### Bava Kamma 49a:16
[Bava Kamma 49a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/49a:16)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מָרֵי דֵּיכִי! אַטּוּ וְלָדוֹת צְרָרֵי נִינְהוּ – וְזָכְיָא בְּהוּ?! אֶלָּא אִיתֵיהּ לְבַעַל – זְכָה לֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא, לֵיתֵיהּ לְבַעַל – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥisda said** in amazement: **Master of this ruling! Is that to say** that compensation for the **offspring is** like **bundles** of money, **and she acquires them** when her husband dies? Rabba seems to understand that the pregnant woman assumes ownership of the offspring by virtue of being in possession of them when the husband dies, and therefore has the right to compensation for them. That is not the case. **Rather,** if **the husband is present, the Merciful One grants** compensation for the offspring **to him,** but if **the husband is not** alive, the Torah does **not** grant compensation to anyone else.


###### Bava Kamma 49a:17
[Bava Kamma 49a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/49a:17)

מֵיתִיבִי: הִכָּה אֶת הָאִשָּׁה, וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ – נוֹתֵן נֶזֶק וָצַעַר לָאִשָּׁה, וּדְמֵי וְלָדוֹת לַבַּעַל. אֵין הַבַּעַל – נוֹתֵן לְיוֹרְשָׁיו, אֵין הָאִשָּׁה – נוֹתֵן לְיוֹרְשֶׁיהָ. הָיְתָה שִׁפְחָה וְנִשְׁתַּחְרְרָה, אוֹ גִיּוֹרֶת – זָכָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** against the opinion of Rabba from the following: If the assailant **struck the woman and her offspring emerged** due to miscarriage, **he gives** compensation for **damage and pain to the woman and compensation for** miscarried **offspring to the husband.** If **the husband is not** alive, **he gives** the compensation for the offspring **to his heirs.** If **the woman is not** alive, **he gives** the payment owed to her **to her heirs.** If **she was a maidservant and** then **she was emancipated, or a convert,** the assailant **acquires** the money. This indicates that if the husband is no longer alive, the woman doesn’t receive anything.


###### Bava Kamma 49a:18
[Bava Kamma 49a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/49a:18)

אָמְרִי: וּמִי עֲדִיפָא מִמַּתְנִיתִין – דְּאוֹקֵימְנָא שֶׁחָבַל בָּהּ בְּחַיֵּי הַגֵּר, וּמֵת הַגֵּר? הָכָא נָמֵי – שֶׁחָבַל בָּהּ בְּחַיֵּי הַגֵּר, וּמֵת הַגֵּר. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְאַחַר מִיתַת הַגֵּר,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **said** in response to this: **But is** the *baraita* **preferable to the mishna, which we interpreted** as referring to a case **where he injured her during the lifetime of the convert, and the convert** then **died? Here also,** it must be explained **that he injured her during the lifetime of the convert, and the convert** then **died. And if you wish, say** instead that he injured her even **after the death of the convert.**