| 49a. א"כ משהאשה יולדת משבחת אלא שמין את הולדות כמה הן יפין ונותן לבעל ואם אין לה בעל נותן ליורשיו,היתה שפחה ונשתחררה או גיורת פטור:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big טעמא דמתכוין לחבירו הא מתכוין לאשה משלם דמי ולדות לימא תיהוי תיובתא דרב אדא בר אהבה דאמר רב אדא בר אהבה שוורים שנתכוונו לאשה פטורים מדמי ולדות,אמר לך רב אדא בר אהבה הוא הדין דאפי' נתכוונו לאשה נמי פטורים מדמי ולדות והא דקתני שור שהיה מתכוין לחבירו איידי דקא בעי למיתנא סיפא אדם שהיה מתכוין לחבירו דהכי כתיב קרא קתני רישא נמי שור שהיה מתכוין לחבירו,אמר רב פפא שור שנגח את השפחה ויצאו ילדיה משלם דמי ולדות מאי טעמא חמרתא מעברתא בעלמא הוא דאזיק דאמר קרא (בראשית כב, ה) שבו לכם פה עם החמור עם הדומה לחמור:,כיצד משלם דמי ולדות: דמי ולדות שבח ולדות מיבעי ליה הכי נמי קאמר כיצד משלם דמי ולדות ושבח ולדות שמין את האשה כמה היא יפה עד שלא ילדה וכמה היא יפה משילדה:,אמר רשב"ג א"כ משהאשה יולדת משבחת: מאי קאמר אמר רבה ה"ק וכי אשה משבחת קודם שתלד יותר מלאחר שתלד והלא אשה משבחת לאחר שתלד יותר מקודם שתלד אלא שמין את הולדות ונותנין לבעל,תניא נמי הכי וכי אשה משבחת קודם שתלד יותר מלאחר שתלד והלא אשה משבחת לאחר שתלד יותר מקודם שתלד אלא שמין את הולדות ונותנין לבעל,רבא אמר הכי קתני וכי אשה למי שיולדת משבחת ואין לעצמה בשבח ולדות כלום אלא שמין את הולדות ונותנין לבעל ושבח ולדות חולקין,תניא נמי הכי אמר רשב"ג וכי אשה למי שיולדת משבחת ואין לעצמה בשבח ולדות כלום אלא שמין נזק בפני עצמו וצער בפני עצמו ושמין את הולדות ונותנין לבעל ושבח ולדות חולקין,קשיא דרשב"ג אדרשב"ג,ל"ק כאן במבכרת כאן בשאינה מבכרת,ורבנן דאמרי שבח ולדות נמי לבעל מאי טעמא כדתנן ממשמע שנאמר (שמות כא, כב) ויצאו ילדיה איני יודע שהיא הרה מה ת"ל הרה לומר לך שבח הריון לבעל,ורשב"ג האי הרה מאי דריש ביה מבעי ליה לכדתניא ר"א בן יעקב אומר לעולם אינו חייב עד שיכנה כנגד בית ההריון אמר רב פפא לא תימא כנגד בית הריון ממש אלא כל היכא דסליק ביה שיחמא לולד לאפוקי יד ורגל דלא:,היתה שפחה ונשתחררה או גיורת פטור: אמר רבה לא שנו אלא שחבל בה בחיי הגר ומת הגר דכיון דחבל בה בחיי הגר זכה בהו גר וכיון דמת הגר זכה בהו מן הגר אבל חבל בה לאחר מיתת הגר זכיא לה איהי בגוייהו ומיחייב לשלומי לה לדידה,א"ר חסדא מרי דיכי אטו ולדות צררי נינהו וזכיא בהו אלא איתיה לבעל זכה ליה רחמנא ליתיה לבעל לא,מיתיבי הכה את האשה ויצאו ילדיה נותן נזק וצער לאשה ודמי ולדות לבעל אין הבעל נותן ליורשיו אין האשה נותן ליורשיה היתה שפחה ונשתחררה או גיורת זכה,אמרי ומי עדיפא ממתניתין דאוקימנא שחבל בה בחיי הגר ומת הגר הכא נמי שחבל בה בחיי הגר ומת הגר ואיבעית אימא לאחר מיתת הגר | 49a. b If so, /b the consequences would be absurd, as b when a woman gives birth /b her value b increases. Rather, /b the court b appraises how much the offspring are worth, and /b the one liable for the damage b gives /b that amount b to the husband. And if she does not have a husband, /b e.g., her husband died, he b gives /b the money b to his heirs. /b ,If the pregt woman b was /b a Canaanite b maidservant and /b then b she was emancipated, or a convert, /b 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 b exempt /b from pay-ing compensation for miscarried offspring. This is because this payment is made specifically to the husband, not to the woman., strong GEMARA: /strong The first clause of the mishna indicates that b the reason /b the owner is exempt from paying compensation for the offspring when an ox unintentionally gores a pregt woman is specifically b that it was intending to /b gore b another /b ox. By inference, if it b was intending to /b gore b the woman, /b the owner b pays compensation for /b miscarried b offspring. Shall we say /b that this b should be a conclusive refutation /b of the opinion b of Rav Adda bar Ahava, as Rav Adda bar Ahava says: /b With regard to b oxen that intended to /b gore b a woman /b and then did so, the owners are b exempt /b from paying b compensation for /b miscarried b offspring? /b ,The Gemara answers that b Rav Adda bar Ahava /b could have b said to you: The same is true, that even /b if the oxen b intended to /b gore b the woman, /b the owners are b also exempt from /b paying b compensation for /b miscarried b offspring. /b As for b that which is taught /b in the mishna: b An ox that was intending to /b gore b another /b ox, it b is /b taught this way b since it wants to teach the latter clause: A person that was intending to /b injure b another /b person, b as this /b case is b written /b explicitly in b the verse: /b “And if men struggle and hurt a pregt 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 b also teaches the first clause /b in that style: b An ox that was intending to /b gore b another /b ox., b Rav Pappa says: /b In the case of b an ox that gored /b a Canaanite b maidservant, and her offspring emerged /b due to miscarriage, the owner b pays compensation for /b miscarried b offspring. What is the reason? /b The ox b injured a mere pregt donkey. /b 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. b As /b the b verse states /b that Abraham addressed Eliezer, who was a Canaanite, by saying: b “You remain here with [ i im /i ] the donkey” /b (Genesis 22:5), on which the Sages expound that he was alluding to the idea that Eliezer is of b a people [ i am /i ] that is similar to a donkey. /b Therefore, the case of an ox goring a Canaanite maidservant is not included in the Torah’s exemption from paying compensation for miscarried offspring.,§ The mishna teaches: b How does he pay compensation for /b miscarried b offspring? /b 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: b Compensation for /b miscarried b offspring? /b If this is how the sum is calculated, the mishna b should have /b stated: How does he pay b the increase /b in value due to b the offspring? /b The Gemara answers: b That is also what /b the i tanna /i b is saying: How does he pay compensation for /b miscarried b offspring and the increase /b in value due to b the offspring? /b In other words, apart from evaluating the compensation for the miscarried offspring, the court also b appraises /b the value b of the woman /b by calculating b how much she /b would be b worth /b if sold as a maidservant b before giving birth, and how much she /b would be b worth after giving birth. /b ,he mishna teaches: b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: If so, /b the consequences would be absurd, as b when a woman gives birth /b her value b increases. /b The Gemara asks: b What is /b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel b saying? Rabba said: This is /b what he b is saying: But is /b the monetary value of b a woman higher before she gives birth than after she gives birth? But isn’t /b the opposite true, that the monetary value of b a woman /b is b higher after giving birth than before giving birth, /b since the concern for her dying during childbirth, which lowers her monetary value prior to giving birth, is no longer a concern? b Rather, /b the court b appraises /b the value of b the fetuses and gives /b that amount b to the husband. /b , b This /b explanation of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s statement b is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : b But is /b the monetary value of b a woman higher before she gives birth than after she gives birth? But isn’t /b the opposite true, that the monetary value of b a woman /b is b higher after giving birth than before giving birth? Rather, /b the court b appraises /b the value of b the fetuses and gives /b that amount b to the husband. /b , b Rava said: This is what /b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel b is teaching: But is /b the value of b the woman higher /b only b for the one for whom she gives birth, /b i.e., her husband, b and she herself does not have any increase /b in value b at all /b due to the b offspring? /b A pregt woman’s monetary value is increased on account of her pregcy, beyond the monetary value of the offspring. b Rather, /b the court b appraises /b the value of b the offspring and gives /b it b to the husband. And /b in addition, b the /b husband and wife b divide the increase /b in her value due to the b offspring. /b , b This /b explanation of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s opinion b is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: But is /b the value of b the woman higher /b only b for the one for whom she gives birth, /b i.e., her husband, b and she herself does not have any increase /b in value b at all /b due to the b offspring? Rather, /b the court b appraises damage by itself and pain by itself, and appraises /b the value of b the offspring and gives /b it b to the husband, and the /b husband and wife b divide the increase /b in her value due to the b offspring. /b ,The Gemara asks: The opinion b of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel /b in the first i baraita /i , that the woman’s value decreases because of pregcy, poses b a difficulty for that of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel /b in the second i baraita /i , that it increases.,The Gemara answers: This is b not difficult, /b since each i baraita /i is referring to a different case: b Here, /b the first i baraita /i , which stated that the woman’s value increases after giving birth, is referring b to /b a woman b giving birth to /b her b firstborn. /b Her value decreases prior to birth out of concern that she might die in childbirth. b There, /b the second i baraita /i , which stated that her value increases due to pregcy, is referring b to /b a woman b who is not giving birth to /b her b firstborn. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And what is the reason /b of b the Rabbis /b in the second i baraita /i , b who say: The increase /b in her value due to b the offspring /b is b also /b given b to the husband? /b The Gemara answers: They derive it from a redundancy in a verse, b as we learned /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states: “And hurt a pregt woman and her offspring emerge” (Exodus 21:22). b From the fact that it is stated: “And her offspring emerge,” don’t I know /b by inference b that she was pregt? /b If so, b what /b is the meaning when b the verse states: “A pregt /b woman,” and not just “a woman”? b To inform you /b that even the b increase /b in her value due to b the pregcy /b is given b to the husband. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And what /b i halakha /i b does Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel expound on this /b extra word b “pregt”? /b The Gemara answers: b He requires it for that which is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says /b that one who injures a woman b is never liable /b to pay compensation for miscarried offspring b unless he strikes her opposite the womb, /b i.e., on the abdomen. b Rav Pappa said: Do not say /b that it must be b literally opposite the womb. Rather, /b he is liable if she was struck b anywhere that the wound’s /b impact could b reach the offspring, /b i.e., any part of the torso, b to exclude /b a wound to her b hand or foot, for which /b he is b not /b liable, since it could be argued that it was not the wound to the hand or foot that caused the miscarriage.,§ The mishna teaches: If the pregt woman b was a maidservant and /b then b she was emancipated, or a convert, /b he is b exempt /b from the payment of damages for miscarried offspring. b Rabba says: They taught /b this i halakha /i b only /b in a case b where one injured her during the lifetime of the convert, /b i.e., her husband, b and the convert died /b before the payment was given. The reason for this is b that since /b the assailant b injured her during the lifetime of the convert, the convert acquires /b the money, although it is still in the possession of the one liable for the damage. b And once the convert dies /b without heirs, the money is ownerless. Therefore, the assailant b acquires it from the convert. /b Since anyone can assume ownership of ownerless property, the assailant, who already possesses the money, becomes the owner. b But if he injured her after the convert had died, she acquires /b the money, b and he must pay the woman herself. /b , b Rav Ḥisda said /b in amazement: b Master of this ruling! Is that to say /b that compensation for the b offspring is /b like b bundles /b of money, b and she acquires them /b when her husband dies? Rabba seems to understand that the pregt 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. b Rather, /b if b the husband is present, the Merciful One grants /b compensation for the offspring b to him, /b but if b the husband is not /b alive, the Torah does b not /b grant compensation to anyone else.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b against the opinion of Rabba from the following: If the assailant b struck the woman and her offspring emerged /b due to miscarriage, b he gives /b compensation for b damage and pain to the woman and compensation for /b miscarried b offspring to the husband. /b If b the husband is not /b alive, b he gives /b the compensation for the offspring b to his heirs. /b If b the woman is not /b alive, b he gives /b the payment owed to her b to her heirs. /b If b she was a maidservant and /b then b she was emancipated, or a convert, /b the assailant b acquires /b the money. This indicates that if the husband is no longer alive, the woman doesn’t receive anything.,The Sages b said /b in response to this: b But is /b the i baraita /i b preferable to the mishna, which we interpreted /b as a referring to case b where he injured her during the lifetime of the convert, and the convert /b then b died? Here also, /b it must be explained b that he injured her during the lifetime of the convert, and the convert /b then b died. And if you wish, say /b instead that he injured her even b after the death of the convert. /b |
