Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 28, 2016 | 讻状讘 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Kamma 58

The聽mishna said that if an animal falls into someone’s property and benefited, the owner pays what he benefited. 聽 What type of benefit is the mishna discussing – eating or that the produce softened the fall? 聽聽Does it make a difference what caused the animal to fall? 聽What if the animal moved to a different area of the field and ate there – is the owner still exempt from damages and only pays what he benefited? 聽There are a number of different opinions. How does one assess damages an animal does to someone else’s field? 聽Different opinions are brought. 聽The main opinion is that it is evaluated based on a field that is 60 times larger (within that, there are a few varying interpretations). 聽The rabbis question whether this method of assessing is true also for a person who damages another’s field or only if it is their property that caused the damage.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 讗讻诇讛 讚诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖谞讛谞讬转 讗讘诇 谞讞讘讟讛 讗讬诪讗 诪讘专讬讞 讗专讬 诪谞讻住讬 讞讘讬专讜 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 砖谞讛谞讬转 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪砖诇诐 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

one cannot make such an inference from Rav鈥檚 statement. Rav is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary, and this is how to understand his statement: It is not necessary to state that if the animal fell into the garden and ate from its produce, that the owner pays for the benefit that it derives. But if the produce softened the blow of striking the ground and thereby the animal avoided injury, one might say that the owner of the animal should not pay, on the grounds that the owner of the garden may be viewed, analogously, to one who repels a lion from another鈥檚 property. In such a case, although the latter benefited from his action, he is not obligated to pay for it. Similarly in this case, one might think that the owner of the animal does not pay even for the benefit that the animal derived. For this reason Rav teaches us that the owner of the animal must pay for this benefit as well.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬

The Gemara asks: But why not say that this is indeed the halakha, and the owner of the animal should be exempt for paying for the benefit of his animal not being injured?

诪讘专讬讞 讗专讬 诪谞讻住讬 讞讘讬专讜 诪讚注转讜 讛讜讗 讛讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讚注转讜 讗讬 谞诪讬 诪讘专讬讞 讗专讬 诪谞讻住讬 讞讘讬专讜 诇讬转 诇讬讛 驻住讬讚讗 讛讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 驻住讬讚讗

The Gemara answers: One who repels a lion from another鈥檚 property does so with intent, knowing that he would be ineligible for payment. By contrast, this owner of the garden did not act with intent and would have preferred for the incident not to have happened. Alternatively, one could say that one who repels a lion from another鈥檚 property does not thereby have any loss himself. By contrast, this owner of the garden has a loss, in that his produce is damaged.

讛讬讻讬 谞驻诇 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 砖讛讜讞诇拽讛 讘诪讬诪讬 专讙诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗诪专 砖讚讞驻转讛 讞讘专转讛

The Gemara asks: How did the animal fall? In which case does this halakha apply? Rav Kahana says: It slipped on its own urine. Rava says: Another animal belonging to the same owner pushed it, causing it to fall there.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖讚讞驻转讛 讞讘专转讛 讻诇 砖讻谉 砖讛讜讞诇拽讛 讘诪讬诪讬 专讙诇讬讛 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖讛讜讞诇拽讛 讘诪讬诪讬 专讙诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讚讞驻转讛 讞讘专转讛 驻砖注讛 讜诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽讛 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬讘注讬 诇讱 注讘讜专讬 讞讚讗 讞讚讗

The Gemara explains: Rava, the one who says that the mishna is referring to a case where another animal pushed it, in which case the owner pays only for the benefit that the animal derived and is exempt from paying for the damage caused, holds that all the more so this halakha would apply in a case where it slipped on its urine, which is beyond the owner鈥檚 control. But Rav Kahana, the one who says that the mishna is referring to a case where the animal slipped on its urine, holds that if, however, another animal pushed it, this indicates that the owner was negligent and should have prevented this happening. Therefore, in such a case, the owner pays for what his animal damaged, since the owner of the garden can say to the owner of the animal: You should have led your animals across one by one, so that they would not be able to push each other.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讗讜转讛 注专讜讙讛 讗讘诇 诪注专讜讙讛 诇注专讜讙讛 诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪注专讜讙讛 诇注专讜讙讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 注讚 砖转爪讗 讜转讞讝讜专 诇讚注转

Rav Kahana says: They taught only that the owner pays for the benefit that it derives in the same garden bed into which it fell, but if it went from one garden bed to another garden bed and ate from that one, the owner pays for what it damaged. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Even if the animal goes from one garden bed to another garden bed and eats, and even if the animal continues going from one bed to another and eating for the entire day, the owner pays only for the benefit that the animal derived and not for what it damaged, unless it leaves the garden entirely and returns with the owner鈥檚 knowledge.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 转讬诪讗 注讚 砖转爪讗 诇讚注转 讜转讞讝讜专 诇讚注转 讗诇讗 讻讬讜谉 砖讬爪转讛 诇讚注转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讞讝专讛 砖诇讗 诇讚注转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讬诇驻讗 讻诇 讗讬诪转 讚诪砖转诪讟讗 诇讛转诐 专讛讟讗

Rav Pappa said, explaining Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement: Do not say this means: Unless the animal leaves with the owner鈥檚 knowledge and returns with his knowledge; rather, once it leaves the garden with the owner鈥檚 knowledge, even if it returned without his knowledge, the owner is liable to pay for what it damaged. What is the reason for this? It is that the owner of the garden can say to the owner of the animal: Since the animal has now learned that the garden is there with food to eat, every time it strays it will run to there.

讬专讚讛 讻讚专讻讛 讜讛讝讬拽讛 诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽讛 讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讬专讚讛 讻讚专讻讛 讜讛讝讬拽讛 讘诪讬 诇讬讚讛 诪讛讜

搂 The mishna teaches: If the animal descended into the garden in its usual manner and caused damage there, the owner pays for what it damaged. Rabbi Yirmeya asks: If the animal descended in its usual manner and gave birth to a calf there and damaged the produce with amniotic fluid, what is the halakha? Does the owner of the animal have to pay for this damage?

讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转讞诇转讜 讘驻砖讬注讛 讜住讜驻讜 讘讗讜谞住 讞讬讬讘 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转讞诇转讜 讘驻砖讬注讛 讜住讜驻讜 讘讗讜谞住 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬

The Gemara clarifies Rabbi Yirmeya鈥檚 question: Do not raise the dilemma in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that one is liable in a case of damage that is initially through negligence and ultimately by accident, since in this case the owner was negligent in allowing the animal to enter another person鈥檚 courtyard, although the actual causing of the damage was ultimately by accident. When should you raise this dilemma? Raise it in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that one is exempt in a case that is initially through negligence and ultimately by accident. What is the halakha in this case?

诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚转讞诇转讜 讘驻砖讬注讛 讜住讜驻讜 讘讗讜谞住 驻讟讜专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讻讗 讻讜诇讛 讘驻砖讬注讛 讛讜讗 讚讻讬讜谉 讚拽讗 讞讝讬 讚拽专讬讘讛 诇讛 诇诪讬诇讚 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇谞讟讜专讛

The two sides of the question are as follows: Do we say that, since this case is initially through negligence and ultimately by accident, he is exempt from liability? Or perhaps here, in this case, it is entirely due to his negligence; since he saw that the animal was close to giving birth, he should have safeguarded it adequately

讜诇讗住转诪讜专讬 讘讙讜讛 转讬拽讜

and taken care of it, and he bears responsibility for failing to do so. The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讻讬爪讚 诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽讛 讜讻讜壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬

搂 The mishna teaches: How does the court appraise the value of the damage when the owner pays for what it damaged? The court appraises a large piece of land with an area required for sowing one se鈥檃 of seed [beit se鈥檃] in that field, including the garden bed in which the damage took place, it appraises how much it was worth before the animal damaged it and how much is it worth now, and the owner must pay the difference. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived?

讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讘注专 讘砖讚讛 讗讞专 诪诇诪讚 砖砖诪讬谉 注诇 讙讘 砖讚讛 讗讞专

Rav Mattana says: As the verse states: 鈥淎nd it feed in another field [uvi鈥檈r bisde a岣r]鈥 (Exodus 22:4). This teaches that the court appraises the damage relative to another field, i.e., relative to the damaged field as a whole and not an appraisal of only the specific garden bed that was damaged.

讛讗讬 讜讘注专 讘砖讚讛 讗讞专 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

The Gemara asks: But this phrase: Uvi鈥檈r bisde a岣r,鈥 can be understood as meaning: 鈥淎nd it feed in another鈥檚 field,鈥 and accordingly, is necessary to teach that the owner is not liable unless it was a field with an owner, to exclude damage caused by an animal in the public domain, for which the owner is not liable.

讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讘注专 讘砖讚讛 讞讘讬专讜 讗讬 谞诪讬 砖讚讛 讗讞专 诪讗讬 讘砖讚讛 讗讞专 砖砖诪讬谉 注诇 讙讘 砖讚讛 讗讞专

The Gemara answers: If so, if this was the sole intention of the verse, let the Merciful One write in the Torah: And it feed in a field belonging to another [uvi鈥檈r bisde 岣veiro], or alternatively, let it write: And it consume another field [sedeh a岣r].鈥 What is conveyed by the particular expression: 鈥淚n another field [bisde a岣r]鈥? It is to teach that the court appraises the damage relative to another field.

讜讗讬诪讗 讻讜诇讬讛 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪谞诇谉

But why not say that this verse comes entirely for this purpose, i.e., to teach that the court appraises the damage relative to another field? And in that case, from where do we derive the exclusion of liability for damage by Eating in the public domain?

讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讘讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 诪讬讟讘 砖讚讛讜 讜诪讬讟讘 讻专诪讜 讬砖诇诐 讘砖讚讛 讗讞专 诇诪讛 诇讬 讚讻转讘讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 讜讘注专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

The Gemara answers: If it is so that the verse was referring solely to the method of appraising the damage, the Merciful One should have written this in the Torah in the context of payment, as follows: His best-quality field and the best quality of his vineyard he shall pay in another field (see Exodus 22:4), thereby adding the term: In another field, and, by extension, the directive concerning how the damage is appraised, to the verse discussing payment. Why do I need the Merciful One to write it in the context of the act of damaging, in the verse: 鈥淎nd it feed in another field鈥? Conclude two conclusions from it: The verse is referring to both the place where the damage occurred and the method by which the damage is appraised.

讛讬讻讬 砖讬讬诪讬谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 住讗讛 讘砖砖讬诐 住讗讬谉 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专 转专拽讘 讘砖砖讬诐 转专拽讘讬诐 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 拽诇讞 讘砖砖讬诐 拽诇讞讬诐

搂 The Gemara asks: How do we, the court, appraise the value of the damage? Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina says: The court appraises the value of an area required for sowing one se鈥檃 of seed [beit se鈥檃] relative to an area required for sowing sixty se鈥檃 of seed, and according to this calculation determines the value of the damage. Rabbi Yannai says: The court appraises each tarkav, equivalent to half a beit se鈥檃, relative to an area of sixty tarkav. 岣zkiyya says: The court appraises the value of each stalk eaten relative to sixty stalks.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讻诇讛 拽讘 讗讜 拽讘讬讬诐 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 转砖诇诐 讚诪讬讛谉 讗诇讗 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 注专讜讙讛 拽讟谞讛 讜诪砖注专讬诐 讗讜转讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If an animal ate one kav or two kav, the court does not say that the owner pays compensation according to their value, i.e., the value of the actual damage; rather, they view it as if it were a small garden bed and evaluate it accordingly. What, is it not that this means that the court evaluates that garden bed according to what it would cost if sold by itself, which contradicts all the previous explanations?

诇讗 讘砖砖讬诐

The Gemara rejects this interpretation: No, it means that the court appraises the value in relation to an area sixty times greater.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 砖诪讬谉 拽讘 诪驻谞讬 砖诪砖讘讬讞讜 讜诇讗 讘讬转 讻讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖驻讜讙诪讜

The Sages taught: When appraising the damage, the court does not appraise it based on an area of a beit kav, because doing so enhances his position, and they also do not appraise it relative to an area of a beit kor, equivalent to the area in which one can plant thirty se鈥檃 of seed, because this weakens his position.

诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬谉 砖诪讬谉 拽讘 讘砖砖讬诐 拽讘讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖诪砖讘讬讞 诪讝讬拽 讜诇讗 讻讜专 讘砖砖讬诐 讻讜专讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖驻讜讙诐 诪讝讬拽

The Gemara asks: What is this baraita saying? Rav Pappa said: This is what the baraita is saying: The court does not appraise the value of one kav relative to an area of sixty kav, which, being too large for an individual but too small for a trader, is always sold in the market at a lower price, because that would enhance the position of the one liable for damage. Conversely, the court does not appraise the value of a kor relative to an area of sixty kor, an area so large that it is purchased only by a person with a specific need and therefore for a high price, because that would weaken the position of the one liable for damage.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 诪谞讜讞 讛讗讬 讜诇讗 讘讬转 讻讜专 讜诇讗 讻讜专 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛

Rav Huna bar Manoa岣 objects to this: According to this interpretation, this term employed by the baraita: And they also do not appraise it relative to an area of a beit kor, is imprecise. According to the explanation of Rav Pappa, the baraita should have said: And they also do not appraise it relative to a kor, to parallel the term in the previous clause: A kav.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 诪谞讜讞 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗讬谉 砖诪讬谉 拽讘 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 诪驻谞讬 砖诪砖讘讬讞 谞讬讝拽 讜诇讗 拽讘 讘讘讬转 讻讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖驻讜讙诐 谞讬讝拽 讗诇讗 讘砖砖讬诐

Rather, Rav Huna bar Manoa岣 said in the name of Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, that this is what the baraita is teaching: The court does not appraise a kav by itself, because that would enhance the position of the injured party, nor does the court appraise a kav as one part of a beit kor, because that would weaken the position of the injured party, since damage inside such a large area is insignificant. Rather, the court appraises the damage in relation to an area sixty times greater than the area that was damaged.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚拽抓 拽砖讘讗 诪讞讘专讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬 讞讝讬 诇讬 讜转诇转讗 转讗诇转讗 讘拽讬谞讗 讛讜讜 拽讬讬诪讬 讜讛讜讜 砖讜讜 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 讝讬诇 讛讘 诇讬讛 转诇转讬谉 讜转诇转讗 讜转讬诇转讗 讗诪专 讙讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讚讚讗讬谉 讚讬谞讗 讚驻专住讗讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘砖砖讬诐

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who cut down a date palm [kashba] belonging to another. The latter came with the perpetrator for arbitration before the Exilarch. The Exilarch said to the perpetrator: I personally saw that place where the date palm was planted, and it actually contained three date palms [talata] standing together in a cluster, growing out of a single root, and they were worth altogether one hundred dinars. Consequently, since you, the perpetrator, cut down one of the three, go and give him thirty-three and one-third dinars, one third of the total value. The perpetrator rejected this ruling and said: Why do I need to be judged by the Exilarch, who rules according to Persian law? He came before Rav Na岣an for judgment in the same case, who said to him: The court appraises the damage in relation to an area sixty times greater than the damage caused. This amount is much less than thirty-three and one-third dinars.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗诐 讗诪专讜 讘谞讝拽讬 诪诪讜谞讜 讬讗诪专讜 讘谞讝拽讬 讙讜驻讜

Rava said to Rav Na岣an: If the Sages said that the court appraises damage caused by one鈥檚 property, such as his animal, relative to an area sixty times greater, would they also say that the court appraises damage relative to an area sixty times greater even for direct damage caused by one鈥檚 body?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讗 讘谞讝拽讬 讙讜驻讜 诪讗讬 讚注转讬讱 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪讘讻讬专 讻专诪讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 住诪讚专 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻诪讛 讛讬转讛 讬驻讛 拽讜讚诐 诇讻谉 讜讻诪讛 讛讬讗 讬驻讛 诇讗讞专 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讜 讘砖砖讬诐 诇讗 拽转谞讬

Abaye said to Rava: With regard to damage caused by one鈥檚 body, what is your opinion? Are you basing your opinion on the following, as it is taught in a baraita: If one destroys the vineyard of another while the grapes are budding [semadar], the court views how much the vineyard was worth before he destroyed it, and how much it is worth afterward. Abaye states the inference: Whereas, the method of appraising one part in sixty is not taught. Is the basis of your ruling the fact that in this baraita that discusses damage caused directly by a person, the method of appraising one part in sixty is not mentioned?

讗讟讜 讙讘讬 讘讛诪转讜 谞诪讬 诪讬 诇讗 转谞讬讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 拽讟诪讛 谞讟讬注讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讙讜讝专讬 讙讝讬专讜转 砖讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讟讬注讛 讘转 砖谞转讛 砖转讬 讻住祝 讘转 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讗专讘注讛 讻住祝 讗讻诇讛 讞讝讬讝 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 谞讬讚讜谉 讘诪砖讜讬讬专 砖讘讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻诪讛 讛讬转讛 讬驻讛 讜讻诪讛 讛讬讗 讬驻讛

Abaye continued: Is that to say that with regard to damage caused by an animal it is not taught in a mishna or baraita without mentioning the method of appraising one part in sixty like this case? But this is not so, as it is taught in a baraita: If an animal broke down a sapling that had not yet borne fruit, Rabbi Yosei says: Those who issue decrees in Jerusalem say that the damages are determined based on a fixed formula: If the sapling was in its first year, the owner of the animal pays two pieces of silver; if the sapling was two years old, he pays four pieces of silver. If the animal ate unripe blades of grain used for pasture, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: It is judged according to what remains of it, i.e., the court waits until the rest of the field ripens and then appraises the value of what was previously eaten. And the Rabbis say: The court views how much the field was worth before he destroyed it, and how much it is worth now.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Kamma 58

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 58

诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 讗讻诇讛 讚诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖谞讛谞讬转 讗讘诇 谞讞讘讟讛 讗讬诪讗 诪讘专讬讞 讗专讬 诪谞讻住讬 讞讘讬专讜 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 砖谞讛谞讬转 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪砖诇诐 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

one cannot make such an inference from Rav鈥檚 statement. Rav is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary, and this is how to understand his statement: It is not necessary to state that if the animal fell into the garden and ate from its produce, that the owner pays for the benefit that it derives. But if the produce softened the blow of striking the ground and thereby the animal avoided injury, one might say that the owner of the animal should not pay, on the grounds that the owner of the garden may be viewed, analogously, to one who repels a lion from another鈥檚 property. In such a case, although the latter benefited from his action, he is not obligated to pay for it. Similarly in this case, one might think that the owner of the animal does not pay even for the benefit that the animal derived. For this reason Rav teaches us that the owner of the animal must pay for this benefit as well.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬

The Gemara asks: But why not say that this is indeed the halakha, and the owner of the animal should be exempt for paying for the benefit of his animal not being injured?

诪讘专讬讞 讗专讬 诪谞讻住讬 讞讘讬专讜 诪讚注转讜 讛讜讗 讛讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讚注转讜 讗讬 谞诪讬 诪讘专讬讞 讗专讬 诪谞讻住讬 讞讘讬专讜 诇讬转 诇讬讛 驻住讬讚讗 讛讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 驻住讬讚讗

The Gemara answers: One who repels a lion from another鈥檚 property does so with intent, knowing that he would be ineligible for payment. By contrast, this owner of the garden did not act with intent and would have preferred for the incident not to have happened. Alternatively, one could say that one who repels a lion from another鈥檚 property does not thereby have any loss himself. By contrast, this owner of the garden has a loss, in that his produce is damaged.

讛讬讻讬 谞驻诇 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 砖讛讜讞诇拽讛 讘诪讬诪讬 专讙诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗诪专 砖讚讞驻转讛 讞讘专转讛

The Gemara asks: How did the animal fall? In which case does this halakha apply? Rav Kahana says: It slipped on its own urine. Rava says: Another animal belonging to the same owner pushed it, causing it to fall there.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖讚讞驻转讛 讞讘专转讛 讻诇 砖讻谉 砖讛讜讞诇拽讛 讘诪讬诪讬 专讙诇讬讛 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖讛讜讞诇拽讛 讘诪讬诪讬 专讙诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讚讞驻转讛 讞讘专转讛 驻砖注讛 讜诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽讛 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬讘注讬 诇讱 注讘讜专讬 讞讚讗 讞讚讗

The Gemara explains: Rava, the one who says that the mishna is referring to a case where another animal pushed it, in which case the owner pays only for the benefit that the animal derived and is exempt from paying for the damage caused, holds that all the more so this halakha would apply in a case where it slipped on its urine, which is beyond the owner鈥檚 control. But Rav Kahana, the one who says that the mishna is referring to a case where the animal slipped on its urine, holds that if, however, another animal pushed it, this indicates that the owner was negligent and should have prevented this happening. Therefore, in such a case, the owner pays for what his animal damaged, since the owner of the garden can say to the owner of the animal: You should have led your animals across one by one, so that they would not be able to push each other.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讗讜转讛 注专讜讙讛 讗讘诇 诪注专讜讙讛 诇注专讜讙讛 诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪注专讜讙讛 诇注专讜讙讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 注讚 砖转爪讗 讜转讞讝讜专 诇讚注转

Rav Kahana says: They taught only that the owner pays for the benefit that it derives in the same garden bed into which it fell, but if it went from one garden bed to another garden bed and ate from that one, the owner pays for what it damaged. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Even if the animal goes from one garden bed to another garden bed and eats, and even if the animal continues going from one bed to another and eating for the entire day, the owner pays only for the benefit that the animal derived and not for what it damaged, unless it leaves the garden entirely and returns with the owner鈥檚 knowledge.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 转讬诪讗 注讚 砖转爪讗 诇讚注转 讜转讞讝讜专 诇讚注转 讗诇讗 讻讬讜谉 砖讬爪转讛 诇讚注转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讞讝专讛 砖诇讗 诇讚注转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讬诇驻讗 讻诇 讗讬诪转 讚诪砖转诪讟讗 诇讛转诐 专讛讟讗

Rav Pappa said, explaining Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement: Do not say this means: Unless the animal leaves with the owner鈥檚 knowledge and returns with his knowledge; rather, once it leaves the garden with the owner鈥檚 knowledge, even if it returned without his knowledge, the owner is liable to pay for what it damaged. What is the reason for this? It is that the owner of the garden can say to the owner of the animal: Since the animal has now learned that the garden is there with food to eat, every time it strays it will run to there.

讬专讚讛 讻讚专讻讛 讜讛讝讬拽讛 诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽讛 讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讬专讚讛 讻讚专讻讛 讜讛讝讬拽讛 讘诪讬 诇讬讚讛 诪讛讜

搂 The mishna teaches: If the animal descended into the garden in its usual manner and caused damage there, the owner pays for what it damaged. Rabbi Yirmeya asks: If the animal descended in its usual manner and gave birth to a calf there and damaged the produce with amniotic fluid, what is the halakha? Does the owner of the animal have to pay for this damage?

讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转讞诇转讜 讘驻砖讬注讛 讜住讜驻讜 讘讗讜谞住 讞讬讬讘 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转讞诇转讜 讘驻砖讬注讛 讜住讜驻讜 讘讗讜谞住 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬

The Gemara clarifies Rabbi Yirmeya鈥檚 question: Do not raise the dilemma in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that one is liable in a case of damage that is initially through negligence and ultimately by accident, since in this case the owner was negligent in allowing the animal to enter another person鈥檚 courtyard, although the actual causing of the damage was ultimately by accident. When should you raise this dilemma? Raise it in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that one is exempt in a case that is initially through negligence and ultimately by accident. What is the halakha in this case?

诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚转讞诇转讜 讘驻砖讬注讛 讜住讜驻讜 讘讗讜谞住 驻讟讜专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讻讗 讻讜诇讛 讘驻砖讬注讛 讛讜讗 讚讻讬讜谉 讚拽讗 讞讝讬 讚拽专讬讘讛 诇讛 诇诪讬诇讚 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇谞讟讜专讛

The two sides of the question are as follows: Do we say that, since this case is initially through negligence and ultimately by accident, he is exempt from liability? Or perhaps here, in this case, it is entirely due to his negligence; since he saw that the animal was close to giving birth, he should have safeguarded it adequately

讜诇讗住转诪讜专讬 讘讙讜讛 转讬拽讜

and taken care of it, and he bears responsibility for failing to do so. The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讻讬爪讚 诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽讛 讜讻讜壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬

搂 The mishna teaches: How does the court appraise the value of the damage when the owner pays for what it damaged? The court appraises a large piece of land with an area required for sowing one se鈥檃 of seed [beit se鈥檃] in that field, including the garden bed in which the damage took place, it appraises how much it was worth before the animal damaged it and how much is it worth now, and the owner must pay the difference. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived?

讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讘注专 讘砖讚讛 讗讞专 诪诇诪讚 砖砖诪讬谉 注诇 讙讘 砖讚讛 讗讞专

Rav Mattana says: As the verse states: 鈥淎nd it feed in another field [uvi鈥檈r bisde a岣r]鈥 (Exodus 22:4). This teaches that the court appraises the damage relative to another field, i.e., relative to the damaged field as a whole and not an appraisal of only the specific garden bed that was damaged.

讛讗讬 讜讘注专 讘砖讚讛 讗讞专 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

The Gemara asks: But this phrase: Uvi鈥檈r bisde a岣r,鈥 can be understood as meaning: 鈥淎nd it feed in another鈥檚 field,鈥 and accordingly, is necessary to teach that the owner is not liable unless it was a field with an owner, to exclude damage caused by an animal in the public domain, for which the owner is not liable.

讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讘注专 讘砖讚讛 讞讘讬专讜 讗讬 谞诪讬 砖讚讛 讗讞专 诪讗讬 讘砖讚讛 讗讞专 砖砖诪讬谉 注诇 讙讘 砖讚讛 讗讞专

The Gemara answers: If so, if this was the sole intention of the verse, let the Merciful One write in the Torah: And it feed in a field belonging to another [uvi鈥檈r bisde 岣veiro], or alternatively, let it write: And it consume another field [sedeh a岣r].鈥 What is conveyed by the particular expression: 鈥淚n another field [bisde a岣r]鈥? It is to teach that the court appraises the damage relative to another field.

讜讗讬诪讗 讻讜诇讬讛 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪谞诇谉

But why not say that this verse comes entirely for this purpose, i.e., to teach that the court appraises the damage relative to another field? And in that case, from where do we derive the exclusion of liability for damage by Eating in the public domain?

讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讘讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 诪讬讟讘 砖讚讛讜 讜诪讬讟讘 讻专诪讜 讬砖诇诐 讘砖讚讛 讗讞专 诇诪讛 诇讬 讚讻转讘讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 讜讘注专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

The Gemara answers: If it is so that the verse was referring solely to the method of appraising the damage, the Merciful One should have written this in the Torah in the context of payment, as follows: His best-quality field and the best quality of his vineyard he shall pay in another field (see Exodus 22:4), thereby adding the term: In another field, and, by extension, the directive concerning how the damage is appraised, to the verse discussing payment. Why do I need the Merciful One to write it in the context of the act of damaging, in the verse: 鈥淎nd it feed in another field鈥? Conclude two conclusions from it: The verse is referring to both the place where the damage occurred and the method by which the damage is appraised.

讛讬讻讬 砖讬讬诪讬谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 住讗讛 讘砖砖讬诐 住讗讬谉 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专 转专拽讘 讘砖砖讬诐 转专拽讘讬诐 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 拽诇讞 讘砖砖讬诐 拽诇讞讬诐

搂 The Gemara asks: How do we, the court, appraise the value of the damage? Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina says: The court appraises the value of an area required for sowing one se鈥檃 of seed [beit se鈥檃] relative to an area required for sowing sixty se鈥檃 of seed, and according to this calculation determines the value of the damage. Rabbi Yannai says: The court appraises each tarkav, equivalent to half a beit se鈥檃, relative to an area of sixty tarkav. 岣zkiyya says: The court appraises the value of each stalk eaten relative to sixty stalks.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讻诇讛 拽讘 讗讜 拽讘讬讬诐 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 转砖诇诐 讚诪讬讛谉 讗诇讗 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 注专讜讙讛 拽讟谞讛 讜诪砖注专讬诐 讗讜转讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If an animal ate one kav or two kav, the court does not say that the owner pays compensation according to their value, i.e., the value of the actual damage; rather, they view it as if it were a small garden bed and evaluate it accordingly. What, is it not that this means that the court evaluates that garden bed according to what it would cost if sold by itself, which contradicts all the previous explanations?

诇讗 讘砖砖讬诐

The Gemara rejects this interpretation: No, it means that the court appraises the value in relation to an area sixty times greater.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 砖诪讬谉 拽讘 诪驻谞讬 砖诪砖讘讬讞讜 讜诇讗 讘讬转 讻讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖驻讜讙诪讜

The Sages taught: When appraising the damage, the court does not appraise it based on an area of a beit kav, because doing so enhances his position, and they also do not appraise it relative to an area of a beit kor, equivalent to the area in which one can plant thirty se鈥檃 of seed, because this weakens his position.

诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬谉 砖诪讬谉 拽讘 讘砖砖讬诐 拽讘讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖诪砖讘讬讞 诪讝讬拽 讜诇讗 讻讜专 讘砖砖讬诐 讻讜专讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖驻讜讙诐 诪讝讬拽

The Gemara asks: What is this baraita saying? Rav Pappa said: This is what the baraita is saying: The court does not appraise the value of one kav relative to an area of sixty kav, which, being too large for an individual but too small for a trader, is always sold in the market at a lower price, because that would enhance the position of the one liable for damage. Conversely, the court does not appraise the value of a kor relative to an area of sixty kor, an area so large that it is purchased only by a person with a specific need and therefore for a high price, because that would weaken the position of the one liable for damage.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 诪谞讜讞 讛讗讬 讜诇讗 讘讬转 讻讜专 讜诇讗 讻讜专 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛

Rav Huna bar Manoa岣 objects to this: According to this interpretation, this term employed by the baraita: And they also do not appraise it relative to an area of a beit kor, is imprecise. According to the explanation of Rav Pappa, the baraita should have said: And they also do not appraise it relative to a kor, to parallel the term in the previous clause: A kav.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 诪谞讜讞 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗讬谉 砖诪讬谉 拽讘 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 诪驻谞讬 砖诪砖讘讬讞 谞讬讝拽 讜诇讗 拽讘 讘讘讬转 讻讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖驻讜讙诐 谞讬讝拽 讗诇讗 讘砖砖讬诐

Rather, Rav Huna bar Manoa岣 said in the name of Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, that this is what the baraita is teaching: The court does not appraise a kav by itself, because that would enhance the position of the injured party, nor does the court appraise a kav as one part of a beit kor, because that would weaken the position of the injured party, since damage inside such a large area is insignificant. Rather, the court appraises the damage in relation to an area sixty times greater than the area that was damaged.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚拽抓 拽砖讘讗 诪讞讘专讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬 讞讝讬 诇讬 讜转诇转讗 转讗诇转讗 讘拽讬谞讗 讛讜讜 拽讬讬诪讬 讜讛讜讜 砖讜讜 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 讝讬诇 讛讘 诇讬讛 转诇转讬谉 讜转诇转讗 讜转讬诇转讗 讗诪专 讙讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讚讚讗讬谉 讚讬谞讗 讚驻专住讗讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘砖砖讬诐

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who cut down a date palm [kashba] belonging to another. The latter came with the perpetrator for arbitration before the Exilarch. The Exilarch said to the perpetrator: I personally saw that place where the date palm was planted, and it actually contained three date palms [talata] standing together in a cluster, growing out of a single root, and they were worth altogether one hundred dinars. Consequently, since you, the perpetrator, cut down one of the three, go and give him thirty-three and one-third dinars, one third of the total value. The perpetrator rejected this ruling and said: Why do I need to be judged by the Exilarch, who rules according to Persian law? He came before Rav Na岣an for judgment in the same case, who said to him: The court appraises the damage in relation to an area sixty times greater than the damage caused. This amount is much less than thirty-three and one-third dinars.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗诐 讗诪专讜 讘谞讝拽讬 诪诪讜谞讜 讬讗诪专讜 讘谞讝拽讬 讙讜驻讜

Rava said to Rav Na岣an: If the Sages said that the court appraises damage caused by one鈥檚 property, such as his animal, relative to an area sixty times greater, would they also say that the court appraises damage relative to an area sixty times greater even for direct damage caused by one鈥檚 body?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讗 讘谞讝拽讬 讙讜驻讜 诪讗讬 讚注转讬讱 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪讘讻讬专 讻专诪讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 住诪讚专 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻诪讛 讛讬转讛 讬驻讛 拽讜讚诐 诇讻谉 讜讻诪讛 讛讬讗 讬驻讛 诇讗讞专 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讜 讘砖砖讬诐 诇讗 拽转谞讬

Abaye said to Rava: With regard to damage caused by one鈥檚 body, what is your opinion? Are you basing your opinion on the following, as it is taught in a baraita: If one destroys the vineyard of another while the grapes are budding [semadar], the court views how much the vineyard was worth before he destroyed it, and how much it is worth afterward. Abaye states the inference: Whereas, the method of appraising one part in sixty is not taught. Is the basis of your ruling the fact that in this baraita that discusses damage caused directly by a person, the method of appraising one part in sixty is not mentioned?

讗讟讜 讙讘讬 讘讛诪转讜 谞诪讬 诪讬 诇讗 转谞讬讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 拽讟诪讛 谞讟讬注讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讙讜讝专讬 讙讝讬专讜转 砖讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讟讬注讛 讘转 砖谞转讛 砖转讬 讻住祝 讘转 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讗专讘注讛 讻住祝 讗讻诇讛 讞讝讬讝 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 谞讬讚讜谉 讘诪砖讜讬讬专 砖讘讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻诪讛 讛讬转讛 讬驻讛 讜讻诪讛 讛讬讗 讬驻讛

Abaye continued: Is that to say that with regard to damage caused by an animal it is not taught in a mishna or baraita without mentioning the method of appraising one part in sixty like this case? But this is not so, as it is taught in a baraita: If an animal broke down a sapling that had not yet borne fruit, Rabbi Yosei says: Those who issue decrees in Jerusalem say that the damages are determined based on a fixed formula: If the sapling was in its first year, the owner of the animal pays two pieces of silver; if the sapling was two years old, he pays four pieces of silver. If the animal ate unripe blades of grain used for pasture, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: It is judged according to what remains of it, i.e., the court waits until the rest of the field ripens and then appraises the value of what was previously eaten. And the Rabbis say: The court views how much the field was worth before he destroyed it, and how much it is worth now.

Scroll To Top