Bava Kamma 59

אכלה סמדר רבי יהושע אומר רואין אותן כאילו הן ענבים עומדות ליבצר וחכמים אומרים רואין כמה היתה יפה וכמה היא יפה רבי שמעון בן יהודה אומר משום רבי שמעון במה דברים אמורים בזמן שאכלה לולבי גפנים ויחורי תאנים אבל אכלה פגים או בוסר רואין אותן כאילו ענבים עומדות ליבצר

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.

קתני מיהת וחכמים אומרים רואין אותן כמה היתה יפה וכמה היא יפה ולא קתני בששים

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.

אלא מאי אית לך למימר בששים הכא נמי בששים

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.

אמר אביי רבי יוסי הגלילי ורבי ישמעאל אמרו דבר אחד

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.

רבי יוסי הגלילי הא דאמרן

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.

רבי ישמעאל דתניא מיטב שדהו ומיטב כרמו ישלם מיטב שדהו של ניזק ומיטב כרמו של ניזק דברי רבי ישמעאל רבי עקיבא אומר לא בא הכתוב אלא לגבות לניזקין מן העידית וקל וחומר להקדש

The opinion of Rabbi Yishmael is as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “The best of his field and the best of his vineyard he shall pay” (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’s best-quality assets.

ולא תימא כרב אידי בר אבין דאמר רב אידי בר אבין כגון שאכלה ערוגה בין הערוגות ולא ידעינן אי כחושה הואי אי שמינה הואי דאמר קום שלים שמינה במיטב דאיכא השתא דהכי לא אמרינן

And do not say that Rabbi Yishmael’s 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.

מאי טעמא המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה אלא במיטב דלקמיה ומאי ניהו כי היאך דסליק

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’s expression “the best of his field” 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.

אמר מר רבי שמעון בן יהודה אומר משום רבי שמעון במה דברים אמורים שאכלה לולבי גפנים ויחורי תאנים הא סמדר רואין אותן כאילו ענבים עומדות ליבצר אימא סיפא אכלה פגים או בוסר הוא דרואין אותן כאילו ענבים עומדות ליבצר הא סמדר רואין אותן כמה היא יפה וכמה היתה יפה

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.

אמר רבינא כרוך ותני במה דברים אמורים בזמן שאכלה לולבי גפנים ויחורי תאנים אבל אכלה סמדר פגין או בוסר רואין אותן כאילו ענבים עומדות ליבצר

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.

אי הכי רבי שמעון בן יהודה היינו רבי יהושע

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?

איכא בינייהו כחש גופנא ולא מסיימי

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.

אביי אמר מסיימי ומסיימי מאן תנא דחייש לכחש גופנא רבי שמעון בן יהודה היא דתניא רבי שמעון בן יהודה אומר משום רבי שמעון בן מנסיא אונס אינו משלם את הצער מפני שסופה להצטער תחת בעלה אמרו לו אינו דומה נבעלת ברצון לנבעלת באונס

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.

אמר אביי הני תנאי ורבי שמעון בן יהודה אמרו דבר אחד רבי שמעון בן יהודה הא דאמרן הני תנאי מאי היא

Abaye said: These tanna’im 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’im, what is the case about which they gave a similar ruling?

דתניא רבי יוסי אומר נכי חיה בן עזאי אומר נכי מזונות

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.

מאן דאמר נכי חיה כל שכן נכי מזונות ומאן דאמר נכי מזונות אבל נכי חיה לא דאמר ליה אתתא דידי פקיחא היא ולא מבעיא חיה

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.

רב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע עבוד עובדא כוותיה דרב נחמן בששים

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 Naḥman and appraised a damaged date palm relative to an area sixty times greater than the particular area where the tree was standing.

לישנא אחרינא רב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע שמו דקלא אגב קטינא דארעא

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.

והלכתא כוותיה דרב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע בדקלא דארמאה והלכתא כוותיה דריש גלותא בדקלא פרסאה

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.

אליעזר זעירא

The Gemara relates: Eliezer Ze’eira

הוה סיים מסאני אוכמי וקאי בשוקא דנהרדעא אשכחוהו דבי ריש גלותא ואמרו ליה מאי שנא הני מסאני אמר להו דקא מאבילנא אירושלים אמרו ליה את חשיבת לאיתאבולי אירושלים סבור יוהרא הוה אתיוה וחבשוה

was wearing black shoes, unlike the Jewish custom of that time, and standing in the market of Neharde’a. 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.

אמר להו גברא רבה אנא אמרו ליה מנא ידעינן אמר להו או אתון בעו מינאי מילתא או אנא איבעי מינייכו מילתא אמרו ליה בעי את

Eliezer Ze’eira 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.

אמר להו האי מאן דקץ כופרא מאי משלם אמרו ליה משלם דמי כופרא והא הוו תמרי אמרו ליה משלם דמי תמרי אמר להו והא לאו תמרי שקל מיניה

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?

אמרו ליה אימא לן את אמר להו בששים אמרו ליה מאן אמר כוותיך אמר להו הא שמואל חי ובית דינו קיים שדרו קמיה דשמואל אמר להו שפיר קאמר לכו בששים ושבקוהו

They said to Eliezer Ze’eira: 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’eira. 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.

רבי שמעון אומר אכלה פירות גמורים כו׳ מאי טעמא הא דאמר רחמנא ובער בשדה אחר מלמד ששמין על גב השדה הני מילי מידי דצריך לשדה הני כיון דלא צריכי לשדה בעינייהו בעי שלומי

§ 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’s opinion? This that the Merciful One states in the Torah: “And it feed in another’s field” (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’s animal eating this produce, which do not require the field in order to ripen further, the animal’s owner must pay their value as they are.

אמר רב הונא בר חייא אמר רבי ירמיה בר אבא דן רב כרבי מאיר ופסק הלכתא כרבי שמעון

Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya 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.

דן רב כרבי מאיר דתניא כתב לראשון ולא חתמה לו לשני וחתמה לו אבדה כתובתה דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה אומר יכולה היא שתאמר נחת רוח עשיתי לבעלי אתם מה לכם עלי

Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya 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’s 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.

ופסק הלכתא כרבי שמעון כי הא דתנן רבי שמעון אומר אכלה פירות גמורין משלמת פירות גמורין אם סאה סאה אם סאתים סאתים

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’s animal ate ripe produce, the owner pays the value of ripe produce eaten. Therefore, if it ate one se’a of produce, he pays the value of one se’a of produce, and if it ate two se’a, he pays for two se’a. Although Rabbi Shimon’s opinion is the minority one, Rav ruled in accordance with it.

מתני׳ המגדיש בתוך שדה חבירו שלא ברשות ואכלתן בהמתו של בעל השדה פטור ואם הוזקה בהן בעל הגדיש חייב ואם הגדיש ברשות בעל השדה חייב

MISHNA: In a case of one who stacks his produce in another’s 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.

גמ׳ לימא תנן דלא כרבי דאי כרבי האמר עד שיקבל עליו בעל הבית לשמור אמר רב פפא הכא בנטר בי דרי עסקינן דכיון דאמר ליה עייל וגדוש עייל ואנטר לך הוא

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’t 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.

מתני׳ השולח את הבערה ביד חרש שוטה וקטן פטור בדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים שלח ביד פקח הפקח חייב

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.

אחד הביא את האור ואחד הביא את העצים המביא את העצים חייב אחד הביא את העצים ואחד הביא את האור המביא את האור חייב

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.

בא אחר וליבה המלבה חייב ליבתה הרוח כולן פטורין

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.

גמ׳ אמר ריש לקיש משמיה דחזקיה לא שנו אלא שמסר לו גחלת וליבה אבל מסר לו שלהבת חייב מאי טעמא מעשיו קא גרמו לו

GEMARA: Reish Lakish says in the name of Ḥizkiyya: 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.

ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו מסר לו שלהבת פטור מאי טעמא צבתא דחרש גרמה לו ולא מחייב עד שימסור לו גווזא

And Rabbi Yoḥanan 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