Pushing Women

ByJordan Parr

The Hebrew Bible

שמות כ״א:כ״ב

(כב) וְכִֽי־יִנָּצ֣וּ אֲנָשִׁ֗ים וְנָ֨גְפ֜וּ אִשָּׁ֤ה הָרָה֙ וְיָצְא֣וּ יְלָדֶ֔יהָ וְלֹ֥א יִהְיֶ֖ה אָס֑וֹן עָנ֣וֹשׁ יֵעָנֵ֗שׁ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֨ר יָשִׁ֤ית עָלָיו֙ בַּ֣עַל הָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה וְנָתַ֖ן בִּפְלִלִֽים׃

Exodus 21:22

(22) When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman’s husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning.

רש"י על שמות כ״א:כ״ב

(א) וכי ינצו אנשים. זֶה עִם זֶה, וְנִתְכַּוֵּן לְהַכּוֹת אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ וְהִכָּה אֶת הָאִשָּׁה: (ב) ונגפו. אֵין נְגִיפָה אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן דְּחִיפָה וְהַכָּאָה, כְּמוֹ פֶּן תִּגֹּף בָּאֶבֶן רַגְלֶךָ (תהילים צ"א), בְּטֶרֶם יִתְנַגְּפוּ רַגְלֵיכֶם (ירמיהו י"ג) וּלְאֶבֶן נֶגֶף (ישעיהו ח'): (ג) ולא יהיה אסון. בָּאִשָּׁה: (ד) ענוש יענש. לְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵי וְלָדוֹת לַבַּעַל; שָׁמִין אוֹתָהּ כַּמָּה הָיְתָה רְאוּיָה לִמָּכֵר בַּשּׁוּק לְהַעֲלוֹת בְּדָמֶיהָ בִּשְׁבִיל הֶרְיוֹנָהּ: (ה) ענש יענש. יִגְבּוּ מָמוֹן מִמֶּנּוּ, כְּמוֹ וְעָנְשׁוּ אֹתוֹ מֵאָה כֶסֶף (דברים כ"ב): (ו) כאשר ישית עליו וגו'. כְּשֶׁיִּתְבָּעֶנּוּ הַבַּעַל בְּבֵית דִּין לְהָשִׁית עָלָיו עֹנֶשׁ עַל כָּךְ: (ז) ונתן. הַמַּכֶּה דְּמֵי וְלָדוֹת: (ח) בפללים – עַל פִּי הַדַּיָּנִים (מכילתא):

Rashi on Exodus 21:22

(1) וכי ינצו אנשים IF MEN STRIVE with each other and one intended to strike the other and inadvertently struck the woman (Sanhedrin 79b). (2) ונגפו AND HURT [A WOMAN WITH CHILD] — The root נגף always signifies “dashing against” and “striking”. Examples are: (Psalms 91:15) “lest thou dash (תגוף) thy foot against a stone”; (Jeremiah 13:16) “and before your feet dash (יתנגפו)”; (Isaiah 8:14) “but for a stone of dashing (נגף). (3) ולא יהיה אסון AND YET THERE BE NO MISCHIEF — no further mischief with the woman (Sanhedrin 79b). (4) ענוש יענש HE SHALL SURELY BE AMERCED to pay the value of the offspring to the husband. We estimate her value according to what she is worth if she were sold as a slave in the market giving her a higher value on account of her being with child (Bava Kamma 49a). (5) ענוש יענש (lit., he shall surely be punished) — It means that they shall exact money from him. ענוש is used here in the same sense as in, (Deuteronomy 22:19) “And they shall amerce (וענשו) him an hundred shekel of silver”. (6) כאשר ישית עליו וגו׳ means, when the husband will summons him before the Court that they should place upon him a fine for this (cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 21:23:7), (7) ונתן THEN HE SHALL GIVE — i. e. the man that struck the woman shall give the value of the offspring. (8) בפללים ACCORDING TO THE DECISION OF THE JUDGES (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 21:23:9).

ערכין ז׳ א:י״ב

גמ׳ פשיטא גופה היא איצטריך ס"ד אמינא הואיל וכתיב (שמות כא, כב) כאשר ישית עליו בעל האשה ממונא דבעל הוא ולא ליפסדיה מיניה קמ"ל

Arakhin 7a:12

GEMARA: Isn’t it obvious that the court executes the pregnant woman rather than waiting? After all, it is part of her body. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the mishna to teach this, as it might enter your mind to say that since it is written: “And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her offspring depart…he shall be fined, as the woman’s husband shall place upon him” (Exodus 21:22), the fetus is considered to be the property of the husband. If so, the court should wait until she gives birth before executing her, and not cause him to lose the fetus. Consequently, the mishna teaches us that the court does not take this factor into account.

בבא קמא מ״ג א:ד׳

אמר רב פפא התורה זכתה דמי ולדות לבעל אפילו בא עליה בזנות מאי טעמא אמר קרא (שמות כא, כב) כאשר ישית עליו בעל האשה

Bava Kamma 43a:4

Rav Pappa said: The Torah awarded the payment of compensation for miscarried offspring to the husband, even if he is not actually her legal husband but rather engaged in licentious sexual intercourse with her. Although he has no rights to her property, the damages for the miscarried offspring belong to him alone, as he is the father of the offspring. What is the reason? The verse states: “As the husband [ba’al] of the woman shall impose upon him” (Exodus 21:22), indicating that damages are not collected by the woman, but by the man who engaged in intercourse [ba’al] with her, impregnating her. Therefore, if they got divorced, the ex-husband receives the payment.

בבא קמא פ״ז א:ה׳

מתני׳ זה חומר באדם מבשור שהאדם משלם נזק צער ריפוי שבת ובושת ומשלם דמי ולדות ושור אינו משלם אלא נזק ופטור מדמי ולדות

Bava Kamma 87a:5

MISHNA: This halakha is a stringency with regard to a person who caused injury, compared to the halakha with regard to an ox that caused injury: The halakha is that the person pays compensation for damage, pain, medical costs, loss of livelihood, and humiliation; and if he caused a woman to miscarry he also pays compensation for miscarried offspring, as the verse states (see Exodus 21:22). But in the case of an ox that caused injury, the owner pays only compensation for damage, and he is exempt from paying compensation for miscarried offspring.

חגיגה י״א א:ח׳

דתניא רבי אומר (שמות כא, כג) נפש תחת נפש ממון אתה אומר ממון או אינו אלא נפש ממש נאמרה נתינה למטה ונאמרה נתינה למעלה מה להלן ממון אף כאן ממון:

Chagigah 11a:8

The Gemara elaborates. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: “But if any harm follow, then you shall give life for life” (Exodus 21:23). This verse is referring to a payment of money. Do you say money, or perhaps it is solely an actual life that is demanded? The term giving is stated below: “You shall give life for life,” and giving is stated above, in the previous verse: “And he shall give as the judges determine” (Exodus 21:22). Just as there, the giving is in the form of money, so too here, it is referring to a payment of money. Although this halakha is not explicit in the Torah, the verses lend support to it.

מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל, מַסֶּכְתָּא דִנְזִיקִין ח׳:ד׳

(ב) ואם אסון יהיה בא הכתוב ללמדך על המתכוין להכות שונאו והכה את אוהבו שהוא במיתה, לכך נאמר פרשה זו. רבי אומר, אם נתכוון להכות שונא זה והכה אחר שהוא שונאו פטור. (אבל) המתכוון (שלא) להכות שונאו והכה אוהבו (דין הוא) שיהא פטור, אבל בא הכתוב ללמדך שחבל אשה לבעל, ודמי ולדות לבעל (וכל המתחייב מיתה פטור מן התשלומין). רבי יצחק אומר, אף המתכון להכות והכה פטור עד שיאמר לאיש פלוני אני מכה. (תלמוד לומר) "וארב לו וקם עליו והכהו נפש" (דברים יט), ומה תלמוד לומר וכי ינצו (שומע) לפי שהוא אומר ואיש כי יכה כל נפש אדם, שומע אני אף בן שמונה. תלמוד לומר כי ינצו אנשים מגיד שאינו חייב עד שיהרוג בן של קיימא.

Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, Tractate Nezikin 8:4

(2) (Exodus 21:22) "And if men fight, etc." What is the intent of this section? From (Ibid. 14) "And if a man be bent against his neighbor to kill him," we hear only that one who intends to smite his foe and does so is to be put to death; but we do not hear the same for one who intends to smite his foe and smites his friend. It is, therefore, written (to this effect) "And if men fight … and if there be death (in his friend) then you shall give a life for a life." Rebbi says: If one intends to smite this foe and smites a different foe it follows that he should be liable; but if one intends to smite his foe and smites his friend, should he not be exempt? The verse, rather, comes to teach that payment for a wife's injury belongs to the husband, and payment for (the death of) fetuses belongs to the husband. R. Yitzchak says: Even a man who intends to smite one and smites another is not liable — until he makes it clear that it is this man that he wishes to smite, as it is written (Devarim 19:11) "and he rise up against him and he smite him, etc." What, then, is the intent of "and if men fight, etc."? From (Leviticus 24:17) "And if a man smite any soul of man" I would understand even an eight-month birth, (who is destined to die); it is, therefore, written ("and if men fight," to indicate that) he is not liable unless he kills one who is (otherwise) destined to live.

שמות כ״א:כ״ח-כ״ט

(כח) וְכִֽי־יִגַּ֨ח שׁ֥וֹר אֶת־אִ֛ישׁ א֥וֹ אֶת־אִשָּׁ֖ה וָמֵ֑ת סָק֨וֹל יִסָּקֵ֜ל הַשּׁ֗וֹר וְלֹ֤א יֵאָכֵל֙ אֶת־בְּשָׂר֔וֹ וּבַ֥עַל הַשּׁ֖וֹר נָקִֽי׃ (כט) וְאִ֡ם שׁוֹר֩ נַגָּ֨ח ה֜וּא מִתְּמֹ֣ל שִׁלְשֹׁ֗ם וְהוּעַ֤ד בִּבְעָלָיו֙ וְלֹ֣א יִשְׁמְרֶ֔נּוּ וְהֵמִ֥ית אִ֖ישׁ א֣וֹ אִשָּׁ֑ה הַשּׁוֹר֙ יִסָּקֵ֔ל וְגַם־בְּעָלָ֖יו יוּמָֽת׃

Exodus 21:28-29

(28) When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox is not to be punished. (29) If, however, that ox has been in the habit of goring, and its owner, though warned, has failed to guard it, and it kills a man or a woman—the ox shall be stoned and its owner, too, shall be put to death.

רש"י על שמות כ״א:כ״ט

(א) מתמל שלשם. הֲרֵי שָׁלֹשׁ נְגִיחוֹת (מכילתא): (ב) והועד בבעליו. לְשׁוֹן הַתְרָאָה בְעֵדִים, כְּמוֹ הָעֵד הֵעִד בָּנוּ הָאִישׁ (בראשית מ"ג): (ג) והמית איש וגו'. לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כִּי יִגַּח אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁהֱמִיתוֹ בִנְגִיחָה, הֱמִיתוֹ בִנְשִׁיכָה, דְּחִיפָה, בְּעִיטָה, מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְהֵמִית: (ד) וגם בעליו יומת. בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם. יָכוֹל בִּידֵי אָדָם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מוֹת יוּמַת הַמַּכֶּה רוֹצֵחַ הוּא, עַל רְצִיחָתוֹ אַתָּה הוֹרְגוֹ וְאִי אַתָּה הוֹרְגוֹ עַל רְצִיחַת שׁוֹרוֹ (סנהדרין ט"ו):

Rashi on Exodus 21:29

(1) מתמל שלשם [BUT IF THE OX HAS BEEN WONT TO THRUST] YESTERDAY AND BEFORE YESTERDAY — Here you have including the present occasion the three times an ox must gore before it can be declared a מועד (Bava Kamma 23b).‎ (2) והועד בבעליו AND IT HATH BEEN TESTIFIED TO HIS OWNER — הועד (from the root עוד) is an expression for warning through witnesses (Bava Kamma 24a), as in, (Genesis 43:3) “the man hath solemnly forewarned (הָעֵד הַעִד) us”. (3) והמית איש וגו׳ BUT HE HATH PUT TO DEATH A MAN [OR WOMAN] — Since it states, (v. 28) “If an ox gore (יגח) [a man or a woman, that he die]” I might say that I have only the law dealing with the case that it kills by pushing him with the horn (the root נגח being mainly used of thrusting with the horn, cf. e .g., Deuteronomy 33:17) but whence can the law be derived that it applies also to the case where it kills by biting, thrusting, or kicking? Scripture therefore states “he hath put to death [a man or a woman]” thus intimating that so long as death is caused by the animal it is liable to stoning. (4) וגם בעליו יומת AND HIS OWNER ALSO SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH by a visitation of God. You might perhaps think he shall be punished by human agency (the judges)! Scripture, however, states, (Numbers 35:21) “he that smote him (a human being) shall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer” — the force of these last words is to intimate that for a murder committed by himself you shall put him to death (i. e. he suffers death by human agency as is the law regarding a murderer), but you shall not put him to death on account of a murder committed by his ox; this must be left to God (Sanhedrin 15b; cf. also Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 21:29:8).