Bava Kamma - Daf 42
- Rebbe Yose HaGlili: נקי מדמי ולדות
Rebbe Yose HaGlili darshens "בעל השור נקי" to teach: נקי מדמי ולדות – he is absolved from paying for offspring lost when his ox attacked a pregnant woman. Rebbe Akiva asked that this law is already known from the passuk of דמי ולדות: "כי ינצו אנשים" – if men shall fight, which implies אנשים ולא שוורים – men, and not oxen!? The Gemara seeks an answer to this challenge, and eventually Abaye and Rava answer that if not for Rebbe Yose’s derashah, the word "אנשים" could have been darshened as follows: אנשים אין אסון באשה יענשו – regarding men, when there is no death of the woman, they are punished by paying for the lost fetus, יש אסון באשה לא יענשו – but if there is a death of the woman, they are not punished monetarily, because killing her incurs the death penalty, which exempts all monetary payments (because of קם ליה בדרבה מיניה), ולא שוורים דאע"ג דיש אסון יענשו – but not regarding oxen, where even if there is a death, [its owner] is still punished monetarily by paying for the lost fetus. Therefore, Rebbe Yose’s derashah is necessary to teach that he does not pay. Rav Adda bar Ahava disagrees with Abaye and Rava about the laws of קם ליה בדרבה מיניה and adjusts their explanation accordingly.
- Rebbe Akiva: נקי מדמי עבד
In another Baraisa, Rebbe Akiva darshens "בעל השור נקי" to teach: נקי מדמי עבד – he is absolved from payment of thirty shekalim for his ox’s killing a slave. The Gemara asks that Rebbe Akiva should ask himself the same challenge he posed to Rebbe Eliezer regarding half-kofer on Daf 41b, that since a tam only pays from its body, the slave’s owner cannot collect payment, since this ox is killed and forbidden in benefit!? After two answers are rejected, Rava answers that without the passuk, one would think: הואיל ומחמירני בעבד יותר מבן חורין – since I am more stringent regarding a killed slave than regarding a killed free man, in that kofer for a free man worth a sela would be a mere sela, whereas payment for a killed slave is invariably thirty shekalim, so one would think that even a tam pays these thirty shekalim מעלייה – from his choice property, and not from the ox. Therefore, a passuk is needed to absolve the owner from paying. A Baraisa is brought in support of Rava’s explanation.
- אף אשה נזקיה ליורשיה regarding כופר
In a Baraisa it was taught: the passuk says "והמית איש או אשה" – and it killed a man or woman, indicating a comparison between the two. Rebbe Akiva explains that since we already know from elsewhere that kofer is paid for killing a woman, the passuk is teaching: מה איש נזקיו ליורשיו – just as regarding a man, his damage payments are given to his heirs if he dies before they are paid, אף אשה נזקיה ליורשיה – so too regarding a woman, her damage payments are given to her heirs, not her husband. The Gemara objects that Rebbe Akiva holds a husband does inherit his wife, so why would he not inherit her damages as well? Reish Lakish explained that Rebbe Akiva referred specifically to kofer, which is only paid after her death. Therefore, it is "ראוי" – a mere potential asset, ואין הבעל נוטל בראוי כבמוחזק – and the husband does not take in inheritance the potential assets of his wife’s estate as he does from her possessed assets. The Gemara provides the source that kofer is not paid until actual death (and not as soon as the victim is assessed that he will die).
