Bava Kamma 49A

אם כן, משהאשה יולדת משבחת! אלא שמין את הולדות כמה הן יפין, ונותן לבעל. ואם אין לה בעל ⁠– נותן ליורשיו.

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.

היתה שפחה ונשתחררה, או גיורת ⁠– פטור.

If the pregnant woman was a Canaanite female slave 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.

גמ׳ 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?

Talmud: The first clause of the Mishnah 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. should 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?

אמר לך רב אדא בר אהבה: הוא הדין דאפילו 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״.

The Talmud 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 Mishnah: 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 Mishnah also teaches the first clause in that style: An ox that was intending to gore another ox.