(Continuation of Mishnah - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): This cannot be. If so, she is worth more after birth!

Rather, we estimate how much the child is worth. He gives this to her husband;

If she has no husband, it goes to his heirs.

If she was a freed slave or convert (and also her husband was a freed slave or convert, and he had no heirs) , there is no payment.

(Gemara) Inference: The ox does not pay because it intended for an ox. Had it intended for her, it would pay. This refutes Rav Ada bar Ahavah!

(Rav Ada bar Ahavah): If an ox intended for a woman, it does not pay for the fetus.

Rejection: No. Even if it intended for her, it would not pay;

The Mishnah discusses intent regarding an ox for parallel structure to the case of a man.

(Rav Papa): If an ox gored a slave, and caused a miscarriage, it pays for the fetus.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: She is (her master's property), just like a pregnant donkey;

We read "Im (with) the donkey" - Am (a nation) that resembles a donkey.

(Mishnah): To pay for the fetus, we evaluate...

Question: It should not say the value of the fetus, rather (Bach - the value of the fetus and) the added value due to of the fetus!

Answer: Correct! The Mishnah asks, how do we evaluate the value of and added value due to of the fetus? We evaluate how much the mother was worth before giving birth and after giving birth.

(Mishnah - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): This cannot be. If so, she is worth more after birth!

Question: What does this mean? (Chachamim (the first Tana) obligate paying the difference. Surely, they hold that she is worth less after birth!)

Answer #1 (Rabah): A woman is not worth less after birth, rather she is worth more (for she is no longer in danger);

Rather, we estimate how much the child is worth. He gives this to her husband;

Support (Beraisa #1): A woman is not worth more before birth. Rather, she is worth more after birth!

Rather, we estimate how much the child is worth. He gives this to her husband;

Answer #2 (Rava): R. Shimon ben Gamliel asks, does the added value of a pregnant woman belong only to her husband, and not to herself?!

Rather, we estimate how much the child is worth. He gives this to her husband;

Her added value due to the pregnancy is shared with her husband.

Support (Beraisa #2 - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): Does the added value of a pregnant woman belong only to her husband, and not to her herself?!

Rather, we estimate the Nezek by itself, and the pain by itself, and give these to her;

We evaluate the fetus. This goes to her husband;

Her added value due to the pregnancy is shared with her husband.

Question: R. Shimon ben Gamliel contradicts himself in the two Beraisos!

Answer: Beraisa #1 discusses a woman giving birth the first time (she is in great danger, she is worth less before birth). Beraisa #2 discusses a woman who already gave birth.

Question: Chachamim say that the husband also gets her added value due to the pregnancy. What is their reason?

Answer (Beraisa) Question: It says "and she lost her children." Why must it say (that she was) "pregnant"?

Answer: This teaches that her added value due to the pregnancy goes to her husband.

Question: What does R. Shimon ben Gamliel learn from "pregnant"?

Answer: It teaches R. Eliezer ben Yakov's law.

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer ben Yakov): He pays for the fetus only if he hit her in the area of the fetus.

(Rav Papa): This refers to anywhere where the heat of the blow will reach the child (the torso), i.e. excluding the legs and arms.

(Mishnah): If she was a freed slave or a convert (and her husband was also, and he had no heirs), Reuven does not pay.

(Rabah): This is only if he hit her in her husband's lifetime, and then her husband died;

At the time he hit her, the payment belongs to her husband. Once he dies, Reuven is exempted.

If he hit her after her husband died, he must pay her.

(Rav Chisda): Payment for the fetus is not something that can be transferred!

The Torah said that the husband gets it. If there is no husband, it is not paid.

Question (Beraisa): If Reuven hit a woman, making her lose her fetus, he pays Nezek and pain to her, and compensation for the fetus to her husband;

If the husband is dead, his heirs receive his share. If she died, her heirs receive her share.

If she was a freed slave or a convert, he (Reuven) merits (to be exempt).

Answer #1: Just like we explained that the Mishnah is when he hit her in her husband's lifetime, also the Beraisa.

Answer #2: He hit her even after her husband died. The Beraisa means, whoever merits, collects (i.e. if she was hit after her husband died, she collects).

Suggestion: Tana'im argue as Rabah and Rav Chisda do.

(Beraisa #1): If a Bas Yisrael married a convert and became pregnant through him, and Reuven hit her (in her husband's lifetime, making her miscarry), he pays her husband;

If he hit her after her husband died, he is liable.

(Beraisa #2): He is exempt.

Rejection #1: Indeed, Rabah holds like Beraisa #1. He must admit that Beraisa #2 is like Rav Chisda.

However, Rav Chisda can say that both Tana'im are like him. Beraisa #2 is like Chachamim. Beraisa #1 is like R. Shimon ben Gamliel (who says that she gets a share of her increased value).

Question: If Beraisa #1 is like R. Shimon ben Gamliel, why does it say that the husband died? Even if he is alive, she gets a share!

Answer: In his life, she only gets half. After he dies, she gets her entire increased value.

Rejection #2: Alternatively, Rav Chisda can say that both Beraisos are like R. Shimon ben Gamliel. Beraisa #2 discusses payment for the fetus. Beraisa #1 discusses payment for her increased value.

Question: We should learn from her added value to payment for the fetus (just like she merits his share of her added value when he dies, also payment for the fetus),; and from R. Shimon ben Gamliel to Chachamim (that she merits what was due to her husband when he dies)!

Answer: No. She is party to her added value, so when he dies, she merits his share of it;

She has no share of payment for the fetus. When he dies, she does not merit what was due to him.

Question (Rav Yeiva Sava): If Reuven grabbed the documents of a convert who died (without heirs), what is the law?

Did he grab them intending to acquire the land?

The land can be acquired only through Chazakah. He did not do this, so he gets neither the land nor the document;

Or, did he intend also for the parchment (and he acquires it)?

Rav Nachman: Does he need a worthless document to use for a bottle-cork?!

Rav Yeiva: Yes! (I ask about this.)

(Rabah): If a convert (Yisro) had a security from Reuven, and Yisro died, and Shimon grabbed the security, he must give it to Reuven.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: When Yisro died, his lien on the security ended.

If Reuven had a security from a convert (Yisro), and Yisro died and Shimon grabbed the security, Reuven collects the amount of his loan, and Shimon keeps the rest.

Question: Reuven's premises should acquire the entire security for him!

(R. Yosi bar Chanina): A person's yard acquires for him without his knowledge.

Answer #1: The case is, Reuven is not in the city.

(This answer holds that) whenever Reuven can acquire things, his yard can acquire for him; whenever Reuven cannot acquire (e.g. he is not here), his yard cannot acquire for him.

Answer #2: The case is, the security is not in Reuven's yard. (If it were in his yard, he would acquire even if he were not there.)

The Halachah follows this answer.

(Mishnah): One is liable for digging a pit in the following cases: it (the pit) is in a Reshus ha'Yachid, and its opening is in a Reshus ha'Rabim; it is in a Reshus ha'Rabim, and its opening is in a Reshus ha'Yachid, it and its opening are in each in a different Reshus ha'Yachid.

(Gemara - Beraisa - R. Yishmael): The Torah discusses (and obligates for) a pit in a Reshus ha'Yachid, its opening is in the Reshus ha'Rabim. (We call this a pit in the Reshus ha'Rabim);

R. Akiva says, it is when he made his property Hefker, but not his pit (we call this a pit in the Reshus ha'Rabim).

(Rabah): All agree that one is liable for a pit in a Reshus ha'Rabim.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer - Question: "If a man will open...or dig a pit" - if he is liable for opening it, all the more so for digging it!

Answer: Rather, this teaches that he is liable for digging alone (i.e. the pit is not his, it is in the Reshus ha'Rabim).