Bava Kamma 49B

ותני: ״זכתה״.

And as for the expression in the baraita: He acquires, referring to the one who causes the damage, teach: She acquires.

לימא כתנאי: בת ישראל שנישאת לגר ונתעברה ממנו, וחבל בה; בחיי הגר ⁠– נותן דמי ולדות לגר. לאחר מיתת הגר ⁠– תני חדא: חייב, ותני חדא: פטור. מאי, לאו תנאי נינהו? לרבה ⁠– ודאי תנאי היא. אלא לרב חסדא ⁠– מי לימא תנאי היא?

The Talmud suggests: Let us say that the dispute between Rabba and Rav Ḥisda is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im: With regard to a Jewish woman who was married to a convert, and she became pregnant from him, and someone injured her, causing her to miscarry: If this was during the lifetime of the convert, the assailant gives compensation for miscarried offspring to the convert, i.e., her husband. If this was after the death of the convert, it is taught in one baraita that the assailant is liable, and it is taught in one baraita that the assailant is exempt. What, is it not a dispute between tanna’im? The Talmud clarifies: According to the opinion of Rabba, it is certainly a dispute between tanna’im. His opinion does not accord with the second baraita. But according to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, should we say that it is a dispute between tanna’im?

לא קשיא; הא רבנן, הא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל.

This is not necessarily so, as Rav Ḥisda could say that both baraitot are in accordance with his opinion. As for the difference between them, that is not difficult. They can be explained as referring to the increase in the woman’s value due to the offspring, which is subject to dispute in the Mishnah, rather than referring to the payment of compensation for miscarried offspring. This baraita, which taught that he is exempt, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that the increase in her value on account of the offspring belongs to the husband. That baraita, which taught that he is liable, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who maintains that the woman has a share in her increase in value due to pregnancy, and this is paid even if the incident occurred after the husband’s death.