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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 29, 2016 | 讻状讙 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Bava Kamma 59

If a person damages a part of one’s field so that same laws of assessing the field based on 60, still apply? 聽A braita is brought with different opinions regarding laws of evaluating based on what stage of development the fruits were at the time of the damage. 聽This leads to a discussion and a story regarding looking at something or someone’s potential. 聽one who puts a pile of grain in someone else’s field – who assumes responsibility for animals eating it or it causing damage? 聽It depends on whether it was put there with permission or not. 聽If someone gives a fire to a person without knowledge, and it spreads – the one who gave him the fire is exempt by law but obligated by the hands of God. 聽Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan disagree regarding the type of fire discussed.


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

讗讻诇讛 住诪讚专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 讻讗讬诇讜 讛谉 注谞讘讬诐 注讜诪讚讜转 诇讬讘爪专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 专讜讗讬谉 讻诪讛 讛讬转讛 讬驻讛 讜讻诪讛 讛讬讗 讬驻讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讻诇讛 诇讜诇讘讬 讙驻谞讬诐 讜讬讞讜专讬 转讗谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讗讻诇讛 驻讙讬诐 讗讜 讘讜住专 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 讻讗讬诇讜 注谞讘讬诐 注讜诪讚讜转 诇讬讘爪专

If the animal ate the grapes while they were in the budding stage, Rabbi Yehoshua says: The court views the grapes that were damaged as if they were grapes about to be picked, and appraise the damage based on this. And the Rabbis say: The court views how much the vineyard was worth before the animal ate the grapes, and how much it is worth now. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: In what case is this statement, that the court appraises the vineyard or group of trees that were damaged, said? It is when the animal ate young branches [lulevei gefanim] of vines or shoots of fig trees, but where it ate unripe figs or unripe grapes, the court views them and appraises them as if they were grapes ready to be picked.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 讻诪讛 讛讬转讛 讬驻讛 讜讻诪讛 讛讬讗 讬驻讛 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 讘砖砖讬诐

Abaye continues: In any event, it teaches that the Rabbis say: The court views how much the vineyard was worth before the animal ate the produce and how much it is worth now, and it does not teach that the court appraises the damage relative to an area sixty times greater.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 讘砖砖讬诐 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘砖砖讬诐

Rather, what have you to say? You must say that the wording employed by the baraita is to be understood to mean that the court appraises the damage relative to an area sixty times greater, so here too, in the baraita dealing with one who himself causes damage, the wording is to be understood to mean that the damage is valued relative to an area sixty times greater.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚

Abaye said: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Yishmael both said the same thing. They are of the same opinion that the appraisal for damages is based on the value of the produce remaining in the field once it ripens.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉

The opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili is this that we stated above in the baraita, i.e., that the damages paid for an animal eating unripe grain is assessed according to what remains of the grain.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚转谞讬讗 诪讬讟讘 砖讚讛讜 讜诪讬讟讘 讻专诪讜 讬砖诇诐 诪讬讟讘 砖讚讛讜 砖诇 谞讬讝拽 讜诪讬讟讘 讻专诪讜 砖诇 谞讬讝拽 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 讗诇讗 诇讙讘讜转 诇谞讬讝拽讬谉 诪谉 讛注讬讚讬转 讜拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇讛拽讚砖

The opinion of Rabbi Yishmael is as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淭he best of his field and the best of his vineyard he shall pay鈥 (Exodus 22:4), which means he must pay according to the best-quality field of the injured party or the best-quality vineyard of the injured party. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: The verse comes only to allow injured parties to collect compensation from the superior-quality land of the one liable to pay for the damage, and by an a fortiori inference it is derived that this applies to consecrated property. Compensation for damaging consecrated property is paid from one鈥檚 best-quality assets.

讜诇讗 转讬诪讗 讻专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讗讻诇讛 注专讜讙讛 讘讬谉 讛注专讜讙讜转 讜诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讗讬 讻讞讜砖讛 讛讜讗讬 讗讬 砖诪讬谞讛 讛讜讗讬 讚讗诪专 拽讜诐 砖诇讬诐 砖诪讬谞讛 讘诪讬讟讘 讚讗讬讻讗 讛砖转讗 讚讛讻讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

And do not say that Rabbi Yishmael鈥檚 statement should be interpreted in accordance with the opinion of Rav Idi bar Avin, as Rav Idi bar Avin says: Here it concerns a case where the animal ate the produce of one garden bed from among several garden beds, but we do not know whether the garden bed it ate from was lean or choice. Therefore, the verse says to the owner of the animal: Arise and pay choice land, equivalent to the best-quality land that there is now remaining, and the court does not assume that the animal ate produce from the lesser-quality garden bed, as we do not say this.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛 讗诇讗 讘诪讬讟讘 讚诇拽诪讬讛 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讻讬 讛讬讗讱 讚住诇讬拽

What is the reason that Rabbi Yishmael does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rav Idi bar Avin? It is because he accepts the principle that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant; without such proof, the owner of the animal pays only the value of a lesser-quality garden bed. Rather, Rabbi Yishmael interprets the Torah鈥檚 expression 鈥渢he best of his field鈥 as requiring payment with the best-quality land before him, and what is this? It is that which remained in the field and subsequently sprouted, and the compensation is based on the value of this.

讗诪专 诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖讗讻诇讛 诇讜诇讘讬 讙驻谞讬诐 讜讬讞讜专讬 转讗谞讬诐 讛讗 住诪讚专 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 讻讗讬诇讜 注谞讘讬诐 注讜诪讚讜转 诇讬讘爪专 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗讻诇讛 驻讙讬诐 讗讜 讘讜住专 讛讜讗 讚专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 讻讗讬诇讜 注谞讘讬诐 注讜诪讚讜转 诇讬讘爪专 讛讗 住诪讚专 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 讻诪讛 讛讬讗 讬驻讛 讜讻诪讛 讛讬转讛 讬驻讛

The Gemara examines the baraita. The Master said: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: In what case is this statement that the court appraises the vineyard or group of trees that were damaged said? It is when the animal ate young branches of vines or shoots of fig trees. The Gemara comments: This indicates that if the animal ate budding grapes the court views them and appraises them as if they were grapes ready to be picked. But say, and try to explain accordingly, the latter clause of the baraita, which teaches that if the animal ate unripe figs or half-ripe grapes, that is where the court views them as if they were grapes ready to be picked, indicating that if the animal ate the grapes in the budding stage, the court views how much the vineyard was worth before the animal ate them and how much it is worth now. Therefore, the two clauses of the baraita appear to be contradictory.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讻专讜讱 讜转谞讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讻诇讛 诇讜诇讘讬 讙驻谞讬诐 讜讬讞讜专讬 转讗谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讗讻诇讛 住诪讚专 驻讙讬谉 讗讜 讘讜住专 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 讻讗讬诇讜 注谞讘讬诐 注讜诪讚讜转 诇讬讘爪专

Ravina said: Bind them together and teach them as a single statement, as follows: In what case is this statement said that the court appraises how much the field was worth when the animal ate from it? It is said in a case when the animal ate young branches of vines or shoots of fig trees. But if it ate grapes in the budding stage, unripe figs, or half-ripe grapes, the court views them and appraises them as if they were grapes ready to be picked.

讗讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注

The Gemara asks: If so, the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda is identical to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua with regard to grapes in the budding stage. Why would the mishna state their opinions separately?

讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讻讞砖 讙讜驻谞讗 讜诇讗 诪住讬讬诪讬

The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them with regard to the weakening of the vine. A vine is weakened by the grapes growing on it, as they draw nutrients from the roots and branches. Now that the grapes have been eaten, the vine is no longer weakened. Therefore, according to one opinion, the court takes into consideration this reduction of the weakening of the vine, and that amount is deducted when calculating the damages, whereas according to the other opinion, the court does not take this into account. But their respective opinions are not defined, and it is not clear which tanna takes this weakening into account and which does not.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诪住讬讬诪讬 讜诪住讬讬诪讬 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚讞讬讬砖 诇讻讞砖 讙讜驻谞讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讗讜谞住 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛爪注专 诪驻谞讬 砖住讜驻讛 诇讛爪讟注专 转讞转 讘注诇讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 谞讘注诇转 讘专爪讜谉 诇谞讘注诇转 讘讗讜谞住

Abaye said: Their respective opinions are certainly defined, and it is possible to know which Sage held which opinion, since who is the tanna who is concerned for the weakening of the vine? It is Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya: With regard to the indemnity payments that a rapist must pay his victim, who had been a virgin, he does not pay compensation for the pain caused by the rape. This is due to the fact that she will ultimately suffer the same pain during her first act of sexual intercourse with her husband when she marries. The Rabbis said to him: The pain of a woman who has intercourse willingly is not comparable to the pain of a woman who has intercourse by rape. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda considers future pain when considering payment of damages, and similarly, he considers the reduced weakening of the vine.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 诪讗讬 讛讬讗

Abaye said: These tanna鈥檌m following and Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda said the same thing concerning this matter. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda said this ruling that we said with regard to the case of rape and the case of the vine. As to these other tanna鈥檌m, what is the case about which they gave a similar ruling?

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 谞讻讬 讞讬讛 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗讜诪专 谞讻讬 诪讝讜谞讜转

This is as it is taught in a baraita concerning the halakha of one who injured a pregnant woman, thereby causing her to miscarry, for which the Torah holds him liable to pay her husband compensation. Rabbi Yosei says: The court appraises the compensation for the miscarried offspring and deducts the amount they would have paid for a midwife. Since she miscarried, the husband no longer has to pay for a midwife, so that is deducted from the compensation. Ben Azzai says: The court deducts the value of the extra sustenance the husband would have been required to provide for his pregnant wife.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讻讬 讞讬讛 讻诇 砖讻谉 谞讻讬 诪讝讜谞讜转 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讻讬 诪讝讜谞讜转 讗讘诇 谞讻讬 讞讬讛 诇讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转转讗 讚讬讚讬 驻拽讬讞讗 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 讞讬讛

The one who says that the court appraises the compensation for the miscarried offspring less the amount they would have paid for a midwife would all the more so concede that the appraisal is less the value of the extra sustenance. But the one who says that the appraisal is less the value of the extra sustenance does not necessarily hold that the court appraises the compensation for the miscarried offspring less the money they would have paid for a midwife, since the husband can say to the assailant: My wife is capable and does not require a midwife to assist her when giving birth.

专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 注讘讜讚 注讜讘讚讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘砖砖讬诐

Returning to the discussion of the appraisal of compensation for damage, the Gemara relates: Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, acted in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an and appraised a damaged date palm relative to an area sixty times greater than the particular area where the tree was standing.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 砖诪讜 讚拽诇讗 讗讙讘 拽讟讬谞讗 讚讗专注讗

A different version of this halakha is also stated: Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, appraised the damage caused to a date palm relative to the assessment of the patch of land where the tree stood, i.e., how much it was worth with the tree and how much it was worth without it.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讘讚拽诇讗 讚讗专诪讗讛 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讘讚拽诇讗 驻专住讗讛

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, with regard to an Aramean date palm, i.e., one of lesser quality, and it is assessed relative to the land, but the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Exilarch with regard to a Persian date palm, as they are of higher quality and each one is valuable, and it is not assessed relative to the land.

讗诇讬注讝专 讝注讬专讗

The Gemara relates: Eliezer Ze鈥檈ira

讛讜讛 住讬讬诐 诪住讗谞讬 讗讜讻诪讬 讜拽讗讬 讘砖讜拽讗 讚谞讛专讚注讗 讗砖讻讞讜讛讜 讚讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛谞讬 诪住讗谞讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讚拽讗 诪讗讘讬诇谞讗 讗讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗转 讞砖讬讘转 诇讗讬转讗讘讜诇讬 讗讬专讜砖诇讬诐 住讘讜专 讬讜讛专讗 讛讜讛 讗转讬讜讛 讜讞讘砖讜讛

was wearing black shoes, unlike the Jewish custom of that time, and standing in the market of Neharde鈥檃. Officials of the house of the Exilarch found him and said to him: What is different about you that causes you to wear these shoes? He said to them: I am wearing them because I am in mourning over the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem, and so I wear black shoes, as is the custom of mourners. They said to him: Are you a man of such importance to publicly mourn over Jerusalem? They thought that it was simply presumptuousness on his part. Since he was acting against the prevalent Jewish custom, they brought him to the prison and incarcerated him.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讗谞讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诪谞讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讜 讗转讜谉 讘注讜 诪讬谞讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讗讜 讗谞讗 讗讬讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讬讻讜 诪讬诇转讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讘注讬 讗转

Eliezer Ze鈥檈ira said to them: I am a great man, a scholar, and it is fitting for me to mourn publicly over the destruction of Jerusalem. They said to him: How do we know that you are a scholar? He said to them: Either you ask of me a matter of halakha and I will answer you, or I will ask you a matter of halakha and you will answer me. They said to him: You ask.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚拽抓 讻讜驻专讗 诪讗讬 诪砖诇诐 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诪砖诇诐 讚诪讬 讻讜驻专讗 讜讛讗 讛讜讜 转诪专讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诪砖诇诐 讚诪讬 转诪专讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讜讛讗 诇讗讜 转诪专讬 砖拽诇 诪讬谞讬讛

He said to them: With regard to one who cuts a cluster of flowers on the stem of a date palm belonging to another, what is he required to pay? They said to him: He pays the value of the date stem. He said to them: But ultimately they will become ripe dates, which are worth more. They said to him: If so, he pays the value of the future dates. He said to them: But he did not take ripe dates from the other person, so how can the court obligate him to pay for damage that he did not cause?

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇谉 讗转 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讘砖砖讬诐 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诪讗谉 讗诪专 讻讜讜转讬讱 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讗 砖诪讜讗诇 讞讬 讜讘讬转 讚讬谞讜 拽讬讬诐 砖讚专讜 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专 诇讻讜 讘砖砖讬诐 讜砖讘拽讜讛讜

They said to Eliezer Ze鈥檈ira: You tell us the correct appraisal for the date stem. He said to them: The court appraises the damage relative to a similar piece of land sixty times the size. They said to him: Who says an opinion as you do, so that you can prove you are correct? He said to them: Shmuel is alive and his court exists; you can ask him. They sent the question before Shmuel, together with the ruling of Eliezer Ze鈥檈ira. Shmuel said to them: He is saying well to you, because the halakha is as he says; the appraisal is relative to an area sixty times greater. Upon hearing this, the officials of the Exilarch realized that he was a great man and they released him.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讻诇讛 驻讬专讜转 讙诪讜专讬诐 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讘注专 讘砖讚讛 讗讞专 诪诇诪讚 砖砖诪讬谉 注诇 讙讘 讛砖讚讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诪讬讚讬 讚爪专讬讱 诇砖讚讛 讛谞讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 爪专讬讻讬 诇砖讚讛 讘注讬谞讬讬讛讜 讘注讬 砖诇讜诪讬

搂 The mishna (55b) teaches that Rabbi Shimon says: If the animal ate ripe produce, the owner pays the value of the ripe produce eaten. What is the reason for Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion? This that the Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淎nd it feed in another鈥檚 field鈥 (Exodus 22:4), which teaches that the court appraises the damage relative to another field, this statement applies specifically with regard to produce that requires a field to grow. For one鈥檚 animal eating this produce, which do not require the field in order to ripen further, the animal鈥檚 owner must pay their value as they are.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讚谉 专讘 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜驻住拽 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

Rav Huna bar 岣yya says that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says: Rav judged a practical halakha on a certain issue in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, despite the fact that in general the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion. And furthermore, he ruled that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, even though in that case his was a minority opinion.

讚谉 专讘 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚转谞讬讗 讻转讘 诇专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 讞转诪讛 诇讜 诇砖谞讬 讜讞转诪讛 诇讜 讗讘讚讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇讛 讛讬讗 砖转讗诪专 谞讞转 专讜讞 注砖讬转讬 诇讘注诇讬 讗转诐 诪讛 诇讻诐 注诇讬

Rav Huna bar 岣yya explains: Rav judged a practical halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a field designated by its owner as a lien for his wife鈥檚 marriage contract, which he subsequently wants to sell, if he wrote a document of sale to a first buyer, but his wife did not sign for him to endorse the sale, and subsequently the husband wrote a document of sale to a second buyer, and his wife signed for him, she thereby loses the lien of her marriage contract, since the sale is effective and she can no longer collect from this field; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says that she can say: I did it only to please my husband, but I did not mean it and never intended to forgo my rights. What claim do you, the purchasers, have against me? Therefore, the lien is still in effect. Rav judged a case in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

讜驻住拽 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻讬 讛讗 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讻诇讛 驻讬专讜转 讙诪讜专讬谉 诪砖诇诪转 驻讬专讜转 讙诪讜专讬谉 讗诐 住讗讛 住讗讛 讗诐 住讗转讬诐 住讗转讬诐

And Rav ruled that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as we learned in the mishna: Rabbi Shimon says: If one鈥檚 animal ate ripe produce, the owner pays the value of ripe produce eaten. Therefore, if it ate one se鈥檃 of produce, he pays the value of one se鈥檃 of produce, and if it ate two se鈥檃, he pays for two se鈥檃. Although Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion is the minority one, Rav ruled in accordance with it.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讙讚讬砖 讘转讜讱 砖讚讛 讞讘讬专讜 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讜讗讻诇转谉 讘讛诪转讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛砖讚讛 驻讟讜专 讜讗诐 讛讜讝拽讛 讘讛谉 讘注诇 讛讙讚讬砖 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诐 讛讙讚讬砖 讘专砖讜转 讘注诇 讛砖讚讛 讞讬讬讘

MISHNA: In a case of one who stacks his produce in another鈥檚 field without permission from the owner of that field, and an animal belonging to the owner of the field eats the produce, the owner of the field is exempt. And if the animal is injured by the produce, the owner of the stack is liable. But if he stacked them in that field with permission, the owner of the field is liable for damage caused to the produce.

讙诪壮 诇讬诪讗 转谞谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讚讗讬 讻专讘讬 讛讗诪专 注讚 砖讬拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诇砖诪讜专 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讗 讘谞讟专 讘讬 讚专讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讬讬诇 讜讙讚讜砖 注讬讬诇 讜讗谞讟专 诇讱 讛讜讗

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Shall we say that that which we learned in the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? As, if the mishna were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, doesn鈥檛 he say: A homeowner who gives another permission to bring items into his courtyard is not responsible for them unless the homeowner accepts on himself to safeguard them? The mishna does not mention any such acceptance of responsibility. Rav Pappa said: Here we are dealing with the supervisor of the threshing floors, to whom people would entrust their produce. As, since the supervisor says to the owner of the produce: Bring it in and stack it, it is as though he had said to him: Bring it in and I will supervise it for you.

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜诇讞 讗转 讛讘注专讛 讘讬讚 讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 驻讟讜专 讘讚讬谞讬 讗讚诐 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讚讬谞讬 砖诪讬诐 砖诇讞 讘讬讚 驻拽讞 讛驻拽讞 讞讬讬讘

MISHNA: One who sends a fire, i.e., places a burning object, in the hand of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor is exempt for any damage later caused by the fire according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven. If he sent it in the hand of a halakhically competent person, the halakhically competent person is liable, not the one who sent him.

讗讞讚 讛讘讬讗 讗转 讛讗讜专 讜讗讞讚 讛讘讬讗 讗转 讛注爪讬诐 讛诪讘讬讗 讗转 讛注爪讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讗讞讚 讛讘讬讗 讗转 讛注爪讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讛讘讬讗 讗转 讛讗讜专 讛诪讘讬讗 讗转 讛讗讜专 讞讬讬讘

If one person brought the fire, and one other person subsequently brought the wood, causing the fire to spread, the one who brought the wood is liable for any damage caused. Conversely, if one person first brought the wood, and subsequently one other person brought the fire, the one who brought the fire is liable, since it was he who actually kindled the wood.

讘讗 讗讞专 讜诇讬讘讛 讛诪诇讘讛 讞讬讬讘 诇讬讘转讛 讛专讜讞 讻讜诇谉 驻讟讜专讬谉

If another came and fanned the flame, and as a result the fire spread and caused damage, the one who fanned it is liable, since he is the proximate cause of the damage. If the wind fanned the flames, all the people involved are exempt, since none of them actually caused the damage.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讞讝拽讬讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诪住专 诇讜 讙讞诇转 讜诇讬讘讛 讗讘诇 诪住专 诇讜 砖诇讛讘转 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪注砖讬讜 拽讗 讙专诪讜 诇讜

GEMARA: Reish Lakish says in the name of 岣zkiyya: They taught that one who sends fire in the hand of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor is exempt only when he conveyed to him a glowing coal and one of these people fanned it himself and set it alight. But if one conveyed a torch to a deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor, the one who gave it to him is liable. What is the reason for this halakha? The action of the one who gave it to him directly caused the fire to spread.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪住专 诇讜 砖诇讛讘转 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 爪讘转讗 讚讞专砖 讙专诪讛 诇讜 讜诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬诪住讜专 诇讜 讙讜讜讝讗

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Even if he conveyed a torch to him, he is exempt. What is the reason? It is the tongs of the deaf-mute that caused the damage, since torches do not cause fires on their own. And the one who gives dangerous objects to a deaf-mute is not rendered liable for the damage caused, unless he conveys branches [gavza] to him

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 59

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 59

讗讻诇讛 住诪讚专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 讻讗讬诇讜 讛谉 注谞讘讬诐 注讜诪讚讜转 诇讬讘爪专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 专讜讗讬谉 讻诪讛 讛讬转讛 讬驻讛 讜讻诪讛 讛讬讗 讬驻讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讻诇讛 诇讜诇讘讬 讙驻谞讬诐 讜讬讞讜专讬 转讗谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讗讻诇讛 驻讙讬诐 讗讜 讘讜住专 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 讻讗讬诇讜 注谞讘讬诐 注讜诪讚讜转 诇讬讘爪专

If the animal ate the grapes while they were in the budding stage, Rabbi Yehoshua says: The court views the grapes that were damaged as if they were grapes about to be picked, and appraise the damage based on this. And the Rabbis say: The court views how much the vineyard was worth before the animal ate the grapes, and how much it is worth now. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: In what case is this statement, that the court appraises the vineyard or group of trees that were damaged, said? It is when the animal ate young branches [lulevei gefanim] of vines or shoots of fig trees, but where it ate unripe figs or unripe grapes, the court views them and appraises them as if they were grapes ready to be picked.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 讻诪讛 讛讬转讛 讬驻讛 讜讻诪讛 讛讬讗 讬驻讛 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 讘砖砖讬诐

Abaye continues: In any event, it teaches that the Rabbis say: The court views how much the vineyard was worth before the animal ate the produce and how much it is worth now, and it does not teach that the court appraises the damage relative to an area sixty times greater.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 讘砖砖讬诐 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘砖砖讬诐

Rather, what have you to say? You must say that the wording employed by the baraita is to be understood to mean that the court appraises the damage relative to an area sixty times greater, so here too, in the baraita dealing with one who himself causes damage, the wording is to be understood to mean that the damage is valued relative to an area sixty times greater.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚

Abaye said: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Yishmael both said the same thing. They are of the same opinion that the appraisal for damages is based on the value of the produce remaining in the field once it ripens.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉

The opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili is this that we stated above in the baraita, i.e., that the damages paid for an animal eating unripe grain is assessed according to what remains of the grain.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚转谞讬讗 诪讬讟讘 砖讚讛讜 讜诪讬讟讘 讻专诪讜 讬砖诇诐 诪讬讟讘 砖讚讛讜 砖诇 谞讬讝拽 讜诪讬讟讘 讻专诪讜 砖诇 谞讬讝拽 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 讗诇讗 诇讙讘讜转 诇谞讬讝拽讬谉 诪谉 讛注讬讚讬转 讜拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇讛拽讚砖

The opinion of Rabbi Yishmael is as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淭he best of his field and the best of his vineyard he shall pay鈥 (Exodus 22:4), which means he must pay according to the best-quality field of the injured party or the best-quality vineyard of the injured party. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: The verse comes only to allow injured parties to collect compensation from the superior-quality land of the one liable to pay for the damage, and by an a fortiori inference it is derived that this applies to consecrated property. Compensation for damaging consecrated property is paid from one鈥檚 best-quality assets.

讜诇讗 转讬诪讗 讻专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讗讻诇讛 注专讜讙讛 讘讬谉 讛注专讜讙讜转 讜诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讗讬 讻讞讜砖讛 讛讜讗讬 讗讬 砖诪讬谞讛 讛讜讗讬 讚讗诪专 拽讜诐 砖诇讬诐 砖诪讬谞讛 讘诪讬讟讘 讚讗讬讻讗 讛砖转讗 讚讛讻讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

And do not say that Rabbi Yishmael鈥檚 statement should be interpreted in accordance with the opinion of Rav Idi bar Avin, as Rav Idi bar Avin says: Here it concerns a case where the animal ate the produce of one garden bed from among several garden beds, but we do not know whether the garden bed it ate from was lean or choice. Therefore, the verse says to the owner of the animal: Arise and pay choice land, equivalent to the best-quality land that there is now remaining, and the court does not assume that the animal ate produce from the lesser-quality garden bed, as we do not say this.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛 讗诇讗 讘诪讬讟讘 讚诇拽诪讬讛 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讻讬 讛讬讗讱 讚住诇讬拽

What is the reason that Rabbi Yishmael does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rav Idi bar Avin? It is because he accepts the principle that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant; without such proof, the owner of the animal pays only the value of a lesser-quality garden bed. Rather, Rabbi Yishmael interprets the Torah鈥檚 expression 鈥渢he best of his field鈥 as requiring payment with the best-quality land before him, and what is this? It is that which remained in the field and subsequently sprouted, and the compensation is based on the value of this.

讗诪专 诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖讗讻诇讛 诇讜诇讘讬 讙驻谞讬诐 讜讬讞讜专讬 转讗谞讬诐 讛讗 住诪讚专 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 讻讗讬诇讜 注谞讘讬诐 注讜诪讚讜转 诇讬讘爪专 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗讻诇讛 驻讙讬诐 讗讜 讘讜住专 讛讜讗 讚专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 讻讗讬诇讜 注谞讘讬诐 注讜诪讚讜转 诇讬讘爪专 讛讗 住诪讚专 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 讻诪讛 讛讬讗 讬驻讛 讜讻诪讛 讛讬转讛 讬驻讛

The Gemara examines the baraita. The Master said: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: In what case is this statement that the court appraises the vineyard or group of trees that were damaged said? It is when the animal ate young branches of vines or shoots of fig trees. The Gemara comments: This indicates that if the animal ate budding grapes the court views them and appraises them as if they were grapes ready to be picked. But say, and try to explain accordingly, the latter clause of the baraita, which teaches that if the animal ate unripe figs or half-ripe grapes, that is where the court views them as if they were grapes ready to be picked, indicating that if the animal ate the grapes in the budding stage, the court views how much the vineyard was worth before the animal ate them and how much it is worth now. Therefore, the two clauses of the baraita appear to be contradictory.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讻专讜讱 讜转谞讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讻诇讛 诇讜诇讘讬 讙驻谞讬诐 讜讬讞讜专讬 转讗谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讗讻诇讛 住诪讚专 驻讙讬谉 讗讜 讘讜住专 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 讻讗讬诇讜 注谞讘讬诐 注讜诪讚讜转 诇讬讘爪专

Ravina said: Bind them together and teach them as a single statement, as follows: In what case is this statement said that the court appraises how much the field was worth when the animal ate from it? It is said in a case when the animal ate young branches of vines or shoots of fig trees. But if it ate grapes in the budding stage, unripe figs, or half-ripe grapes, the court views them and appraises them as if they were grapes ready to be picked.

讗讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注

The Gemara asks: If so, the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda is identical to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua with regard to grapes in the budding stage. Why would the mishna state their opinions separately?

讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讻讞砖 讙讜驻谞讗 讜诇讗 诪住讬讬诪讬

The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them with regard to the weakening of the vine. A vine is weakened by the grapes growing on it, as they draw nutrients from the roots and branches. Now that the grapes have been eaten, the vine is no longer weakened. Therefore, according to one opinion, the court takes into consideration this reduction of the weakening of the vine, and that amount is deducted when calculating the damages, whereas according to the other opinion, the court does not take this into account. But their respective opinions are not defined, and it is not clear which tanna takes this weakening into account and which does not.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诪住讬讬诪讬 讜诪住讬讬诪讬 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚讞讬讬砖 诇讻讞砖 讙讜驻谞讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讗讜谞住 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛爪注专 诪驻谞讬 砖住讜驻讛 诇讛爪讟注专 转讞转 讘注诇讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 谞讘注诇转 讘专爪讜谉 诇谞讘注诇转 讘讗讜谞住

Abaye said: Their respective opinions are certainly defined, and it is possible to know which Sage held which opinion, since who is the tanna who is concerned for the weakening of the vine? It is Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya: With regard to the indemnity payments that a rapist must pay his victim, who had been a virgin, he does not pay compensation for the pain caused by the rape. This is due to the fact that she will ultimately suffer the same pain during her first act of sexual intercourse with her husband when she marries. The Rabbis said to him: The pain of a woman who has intercourse willingly is not comparable to the pain of a woman who has intercourse by rape. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda considers future pain when considering payment of damages, and similarly, he considers the reduced weakening of the vine.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 诪讗讬 讛讬讗

Abaye said: These tanna鈥檌m following and Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda said the same thing concerning this matter. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda said this ruling that we said with regard to the case of rape and the case of the vine. As to these other tanna鈥檌m, what is the case about which they gave a similar ruling?

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 谞讻讬 讞讬讛 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗讜诪专 谞讻讬 诪讝讜谞讜转

This is as it is taught in a baraita concerning the halakha of one who injured a pregnant woman, thereby causing her to miscarry, for which the Torah holds him liable to pay her husband compensation. Rabbi Yosei says: The court appraises the compensation for the miscarried offspring and deducts the amount they would have paid for a midwife. Since she miscarried, the husband no longer has to pay for a midwife, so that is deducted from the compensation. Ben Azzai says: The court deducts the value of the extra sustenance the husband would have been required to provide for his pregnant wife.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讻讬 讞讬讛 讻诇 砖讻谉 谞讻讬 诪讝讜谞讜转 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讻讬 诪讝讜谞讜转 讗讘诇 谞讻讬 讞讬讛 诇讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转转讗 讚讬讚讬 驻拽讬讞讗 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 讞讬讛

The one who says that the court appraises the compensation for the miscarried offspring less the amount they would have paid for a midwife would all the more so concede that the appraisal is less the value of the extra sustenance. But the one who says that the appraisal is less the value of the extra sustenance does not necessarily hold that the court appraises the compensation for the miscarried offspring less the money they would have paid for a midwife, since the husband can say to the assailant: My wife is capable and does not require a midwife to assist her when giving birth.

专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 注讘讜讚 注讜讘讚讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘砖砖讬诐

Returning to the discussion of the appraisal of compensation for damage, the Gemara relates: Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, acted in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an and appraised a damaged date palm relative to an area sixty times greater than the particular area where the tree was standing.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 砖诪讜 讚拽诇讗 讗讙讘 拽讟讬谞讗 讚讗专注讗

A different version of this halakha is also stated: Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, appraised the damage caused to a date palm relative to the assessment of the patch of land where the tree stood, i.e., how much it was worth with the tree and how much it was worth without it.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讘讚拽诇讗 讚讗专诪讗讛 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讘讚拽诇讗 驻专住讗讛

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, with regard to an Aramean date palm, i.e., one of lesser quality, and it is assessed relative to the land, but the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Exilarch with regard to a Persian date palm, as they are of higher quality and each one is valuable, and it is not assessed relative to the land.

讗诇讬注讝专 讝注讬专讗

The Gemara relates: Eliezer Ze鈥檈ira

讛讜讛 住讬讬诐 诪住讗谞讬 讗讜讻诪讬 讜拽讗讬 讘砖讜拽讗 讚谞讛专讚注讗 讗砖讻讞讜讛讜 讚讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛谞讬 诪住讗谞讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讚拽讗 诪讗讘讬诇谞讗 讗讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗转 讞砖讬讘转 诇讗讬转讗讘讜诇讬 讗讬专讜砖诇讬诐 住讘讜专 讬讜讛专讗 讛讜讛 讗转讬讜讛 讜讞讘砖讜讛

was wearing black shoes, unlike the Jewish custom of that time, and standing in the market of Neharde鈥檃. Officials of the house of the Exilarch found him and said to him: What is different about you that causes you to wear these shoes? He said to them: I am wearing them because I am in mourning over the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem, and so I wear black shoes, as is the custom of mourners. They said to him: Are you a man of such importance to publicly mourn over Jerusalem? They thought that it was simply presumptuousness on his part. Since he was acting against the prevalent Jewish custom, they brought him to the prison and incarcerated him.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讗谞讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诪谞讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讜 讗转讜谉 讘注讜 诪讬谞讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讗讜 讗谞讗 讗讬讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讬讻讜 诪讬诇转讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讘注讬 讗转

Eliezer Ze鈥檈ira said to them: I am a great man, a scholar, and it is fitting for me to mourn publicly over the destruction of Jerusalem. They said to him: How do we know that you are a scholar? He said to them: Either you ask of me a matter of halakha and I will answer you, or I will ask you a matter of halakha and you will answer me. They said to him: You ask.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚拽抓 讻讜驻专讗 诪讗讬 诪砖诇诐 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诪砖诇诐 讚诪讬 讻讜驻专讗 讜讛讗 讛讜讜 转诪专讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诪砖诇诐 讚诪讬 转诪专讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讜讛讗 诇讗讜 转诪专讬 砖拽诇 诪讬谞讬讛

He said to them: With regard to one who cuts a cluster of flowers on the stem of a date palm belonging to another, what is he required to pay? They said to him: He pays the value of the date stem. He said to them: But ultimately they will become ripe dates, which are worth more. They said to him: If so, he pays the value of the future dates. He said to them: But he did not take ripe dates from the other person, so how can the court obligate him to pay for damage that he did not cause?

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇谉 讗转 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讘砖砖讬诐 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诪讗谉 讗诪专 讻讜讜转讬讱 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讗 砖诪讜讗诇 讞讬 讜讘讬转 讚讬谞讜 拽讬讬诐 砖讚专讜 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专 诇讻讜 讘砖砖讬诐 讜砖讘拽讜讛讜

They said to Eliezer Ze鈥檈ira: You tell us the correct appraisal for the date stem. He said to them: The court appraises the damage relative to a similar piece of land sixty times the size. They said to him: Who says an opinion as you do, so that you can prove you are correct? He said to them: Shmuel is alive and his court exists; you can ask him. They sent the question before Shmuel, together with the ruling of Eliezer Ze鈥檈ira. Shmuel said to them: He is saying well to you, because the halakha is as he says; the appraisal is relative to an area sixty times greater. Upon hearing this, the officials of the Exilarch realized that he was a great man and they released him.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讻诇讛 驻讬专讜转 讙诪讜专讬诐 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讘注专 讘砖讚讛 讗讞专 诪诇诪讚 砖砖诪讬谉 注诇 讙讘 讛砖讚讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诪讬讚讬 讚爪专讬讱 诇砖讚讛 讛谞讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 爪专讬讻讬 诇砖讚讛 讘注讬谞讬讬讛讜 讘注讬 砖诇讜诪讬

搂 The mishna (55b) teaches that Rabbi Shimon says: If the animal ate ripe produce, the owner pays the value of the ripe produce eaten. What is the reason for Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion? This that the Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淎nd it feed in another鈥檚 field鈥 (Exodus 22:4), which teaches that the court appraises the damage relative to another field, this statement applies specifically with regard to produce that requires a field to grow. For one鈥檚 animal eating this produce, which do not require the field in order to ripen further, the animal鈥檚 owner must pay their value as they are.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讚谉 专讘 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜驻住拽 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

Rav Huna bar 岣yya says that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says: Rav judged a practical halakha on a certain issue in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, despite the fact that in general the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion. And furthermore, he ruled that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, even though in that case his was a minority opinion.

讚谉 专讘 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚转谞讬讗 讻转讘 诇专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 讞转诪讛 诇讜 诇砖谞讬 讜讞转诪讛 诇讜 讗讘讚讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇讛 讛讬讗 砖转讗诪专 谞讞转 专讜讞 注砖讬转讬 诇讘注诇讬 讗转诐 诪讛 诇讻诐 注诇讬

Rav Huna bar 岣yya explains: Rav judged a practical halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a field designated by its owner as a lien for his wife鈥檚 marriage contract, which he subsequently wants to sell, if he wrote a document of sale to a first buyer, but his wife did not sign for him to endorse the sale, and subsequently the husband wrote a document of sale to a second buyer, and his wife signed for him, she thereby loses the lien of her marriage contract, since the sale is effective and she can no longer collect from this field; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says that she can say: I did it only to please my husband, but I did not mean it and never intended to forgo my rights. What claim do you, the purchasers, have against me? Therefore, the lien is still in effect. Rav judged a case in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

讜驻住拽 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻讬 讛讗 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讻诇讛 驻讬专讜转 讙诪讜专讬谉 诪砖诇诪转 驻讬专讜转 讙诪讜专讬谉 讗诐 住讗讛 住讗讛 讗诐 住讗转讬诐 住讗转讬诐

And Rav ruled that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as we learned in the mishna: Rabbi Shimon says: If one鈥檚 animal ate ripe produce, the owner pays the value of ripe produce eaten. Therefore, if it ate one se鈥檃 of produce, he pays the value of one se鈥檃 of produce, and if it ate two se鈥檃, he pays for two se鈥檃. Although Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion is the minority one, Rav ruled in accordance with it.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讙讚讬砖 讘转讜讱 砖讚讛 讞讘讬专讜 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讜讗讻诇转谉 讘讛诪转讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛砖讚讛 驻讟讜专 讜讗诐 讛讜讝拽讛 讘讛谉 讘注诇 讛讙讚讬砖 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诐 讛讙讚讬砖 讘专砖讜转 讘注诇 讛砖讚讛 讞讬讬讘

MISHNA: In a case of one who stacks his produce in another鈥檚 field without permission from the owner of that field, and an animal belonging to the owner of the field eats the produce, the owner of the field is exempt. And if the animal is injured by the produce, the owner of the stack is liable. But if he stacked them in that field with permission, the owner of the field is liable for damage caused to the produce.

讙诪壮 诇讬诪讗 转谞谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讚讗讬 讻专讘讬 讛讗诪专 注讚 砖讬拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诇砖诪讜专 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讗 讘谞讟专 讘讬 讚专讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讬讬诇 讜讙讚讜砖 注讬讬诇 讜讗谞讟专 诇讱 讛讜讗

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Shall we say that that which we learned in the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? As, if the mishna were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, doesn鈥檛 he say: A homeowner who gives another permission to bring items into his courtyard is not responsible for them unless the homeowner accepts on himself to safeguard them? The mishna does not mention any such acceptance of responsibility. Rav Pappa said: Here we are dealing with the supervisor of the threshing floors, to whom people would entrust their produce. As, since the supervisor says to the owner of the produce: Bring it in and stack it, it is as though he had said to him: Bring it in and I will supervise it for you.

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜诇讞 讗转 讛讘注专讛 讘讬讚 讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 驻讟讜专 讘讚讬谞讬 讗讚诐 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讚讬谞讬 砖诪讬诐 砖诇讞 讘讬讚 驻拽讞 讛驻拽讞 讞讬讬讘

MISHNA: One who sends a fire, i.e., places a burning object, in the hand of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor is exempt for any damage later caused by the fire according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven. If he sent it in the hand of a halakhically competent person, the halakhically competent person is liable, not the one who sent him.

讗讞讚 讛讘讬讗 讗转 讛讗讜专 讜讗讞讚 讛讘讬讗 讗转 讛注爪讬诐 讛诪讘讬讗 讗转 讛注爪讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讗讞讚 讛讘讬讗 讗转 讛注爪讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讛讘讬讗 讗转 讛讗讜专 讛诪讘讬讗 讗转 讛讗讜专 讞讬讬讘

If one person brought the fire, and one other person subsequently brought the wood, causing the fire to spread, the one who brought the wood is liable for any damage caused. Conversely, if one person first brought the wood, and subsequently one other person brought the fire, the one who brought the fire is liable, since it was he who actually kindled the wood.

讘讗 讗讞专 讜诇讬讘讛 讛诪诇讘讛 讞讬讬讘 诇讬讘转讛 讛专讜讞 讻讜诇谉 驻讟讜专讬谉

If another came and fanned the flame, and as a result the fire spread and caused damage, the one who fanned it is liable, since he is the proximate cause of the damage. If the wind fanned the flames, all the people involved are exempt, since none of them actually caused the damage.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讞讝拽讬讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诪住专 诇讜 讙讞诇转 讜诇讬讘讛 讗讘诇 诪住专 诇讜 砖诇讛讘转 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪注砖讬讜 拽讗 讙专诪讜 诇讜

GEMARA: Reish Lakish says in the name of 岣zkiyya: They taught that one who sends fire in the hand of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor is exempt only when he conveyed to him a glowing coal and one of these people fanned it himself and set it alight. But if one conveyed a torch to a deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor, the one who gave it to him is liable. What is the reason for this halakha? The action of the one who gave it to him directly caused the fire to spread.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪住专 诇讜 砖诇讛讘转 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 爪讘转讗 讚讞专砖 讙专诪讛 诇讜 讜诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬诪住讜专 诇讜 讙讜讜讝讗

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Even if he conveyed a torch to him, he is exempt. What is the reason? It is the tongs of the deaf-mute that caused the damage, since torches do not cause fires on their own. And the one who gives dangerous objects to a deaf-mute is not rendered liable for the damage caused, unless he conveys branches [gavza] to him

Scroll To Top