כ והתניא הכה את האשה ויצאו ילדיה נותן נזק וצער לאשה ודמי ולדות לבעל אין הבעל נותן ליורשיו אין האשה נותנת ליורשיה היתה שפחה ונשתחררה
20 is for the whole of his value a distinction has been made by you between <i>Tam</i> and <i>Mu'ad</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That in the case of Mu'ad, kofer is paid, but not in the case of Tam. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> then in the case of [killing] a slave where the compensation amounts only to thirty [<i>sela'</i>] should it not stand to reason that a distinction must be made by us between <i>Tam</i> and <i>Mu'ad</i>? — Not so, because (on the other hand] I am<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of Mu'ad. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> more strict in the case of [killing] a slave than in that of [killing] a freeman. For in the case of a freeman, where he was worth one <i>sela'</i> the compensation will be one <i>sela'</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 241, n. 3. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> [where he was worth] thirty the compensation will be thirty, whereas in the case of a slave even where he was worth one <i>sela'</i> the compensation has to be thirty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of Mu'ad. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> This might have inclined us to think that [even in the case of <i>Tam</i>] there should be liability. It was therefore [further stated], The owner of the ox shall be quit, implying quit from compensation for [the killing of] a slave. Our Rabbis taught: [It is written,] <i>But it hath killed a man or a woman</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 29. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> R. Akiba says: What does this clause come to teach us? If that there is liability for the goring to death of a woman as of a man, has it not already been stated, <i>if an ox gore a man or a woman</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 28. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> It must therefore have intended to put the woman on the same footing as the man: just as in the case of a man the compensation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 241, n. 3. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> will go to his heirs, so also in the case of a woman the compensation will go to her heirs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not to her husband. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> Did R. Akiba thereby mean [to put forward the view] that the husband was not entitled to inherit her? But has it not been taught: <i>'And he shall inherit her</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXVII, 11. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> this shows that the husband is entitled to inherit his wife. This is the view of R. Akiba'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.B. 111b. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> — Resh Lakish therefore said: R. Akiba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [So MS.M., v. Rashi.] ');"><sup>23</sup></span> stated this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the husband does not inherit the compensation due to the woman. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> only with reference to <i>kofer</i> which, since it has not to be paid save after [the] death [of the victim], is regarded as property in anticipation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As at the last moment of her life the liability for kofer was neither a chose in possession nor even a chose in action ');"><sup>25</sup></span> and a husband is not entitled to inherit property in anticipation as he does property in actual possession.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. B. B. 113a and 125b. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> But why [should <i>kofer</i> not be paid except after death]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why not say that as soon as the blow was ascertained to have been fatal the payment of kofer should be enforced? ');"><sup>27</sup></span> — Scripture says: <i>But it hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death. If there be laid on him a ransom</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Implying that the payment of money as kofer is, like the killing of the ox, not enforced before the victim has actually died. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> But did R. Akiba not hold that damages [for injury also are not inherited by the husband]? Has it not been taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra p. 280. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> If one hurt a woman so that her embryo departed from her, compensation for Depreciation and for Pain should be given to the woman, compensation for the value of the embryo to the husband.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ex. XXI, 22. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> If the husband is not [alive], his due should be given to his heirs, and if the woman is not [alive at the time of payment] her due should be given to her heirs. [Hence] if the woman was a slave that had been emancipated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the husband was of the same category. ');"><sup>31</sup></span>