Bava Kamma 58b

וּלְאִסְתַּמּוֹרֵי בְּגַוַּהּ? תֵּיקוּ.

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

כֵּיצַד מְשַׁלֶּמֶת מַה שֶּׁהִזִּיקָה וְכוּ׳. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי?

§ 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’a of seed [ beit se’a ] 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?

אָמַר רַב מַתְנָה, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וּבִעֵר בִּשְׂדֵה אַחֵר״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁשָּׁמִין עַל גַּב שָׂדֶה אַחֵר.

Rav Mattana says: As the verse states: “And it feed in another field [ uvi’er bisde aḥer ]” (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.

הַאי ״וּבִעֵר בִּשְׂדֵה אַחֵר״ מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְאַפּוֹקֵי רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים!

The Gemara asks: But this phrase: “ Uvi’er bisde aḥer ,” can be understood as meaning: “And it feed in another’s field,” 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.

אִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״וּבִעֵר בִּשְׂדֵה חֲבֵירוֹ״, אִי נָמֵי ״שְׂדֵה אַחֵר״! מַאי ״בִּשְׂדֵה אַחֵר״? שֶׁשָּׁמִין עַל גַּב שָׂדֶה אַחֵר.

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’er bisde ḥaveiro ], or alternatively, let it write: And it consume another field [ sedeh aḥer ].” What is conveyed by the particular expression: “In another field [ bisde aḥer ]”? It is to teach that the court appraises the damage relative to another field.

וְאֵימָא כּוּלֵּיהּ לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא; לְאַפּוֹקֵי רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים מְנָלַן?

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?

אִם כֵּן, לִכְתְּבֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי תַשְׁלוּמִין – ״מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ וּמֵיטַב כַּרְמוֹ יְשַׁלֵּם בִּשְׂדֵה אַחֵר״! לְמָה לִי דְּכַתְבֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי ״וּבִעֵר״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.

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: “And it feed in another field”? 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.

הֵיכִי שָׁיְימִינַן? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: סְאָה בְּשִׁשִּׁים סְאִין. רַבִּי יַנַּאי אָמַר: תַּרְקַב בְּשִׁשִּׁים תַּרְקַבִּים. חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר: קֶלַח בְּשִׁשִּׁים קְלָחִים.

§ The Gemara asks: How do we, the court, appraise the value of the damage? Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says: The court appraises the value of an area required for sowing one se’a of seed [ beit se’a ] relative to an area required for sowing sixty se’a 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’a , relative to an area of sixty tarkav . Ḥizkiyya says: The court appraises the value of each stalk eaten relative to sixty stalks.

מֵיתִיבִי: אָכְלָה קַב אוֹ קַבַּיִים – אֵין אוֹמְרִים תְּשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵיהֶן, אֶלָּא רוֹאִין אוֹתָהּ כְּאִילּוּ הִיא עֲרוּגָה קְטַנָּה, וּמְשַׁעֲרִים אוֹתָהּ. מַאי, לָאו בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ?

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?

לָא, בְּשִׁשִּׁים.

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

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין שָׁמִין קַב – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּשְׁבִּיחוֹ, וְלֹא בֵּית כּוֹר – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁפּוֹגְמוֹ.

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’a of seed, because this weakens his position.

מַאי קָאָמַר? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵין שָׁמִין קַב בְּשִׁשִּׁים קַבִּים – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּשְׁבִּיחַ מַזִּיק, וְלֹא כּוֹר בְּשִׁשִּׁים כּוֹרִין – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁפּוֹגֵם מַזִּיק.

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.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב הוּנָא בַּר מָנוֹחַ: הַאי ״וְלֹא בֵּית כּוֹר״?! ״וְלֹא כּוֹר״ מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

Rav Huna bar Manoaḥ 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 .

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר מָנוֹחַ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא, הָכִי קָתָנֵי: אֵין שָׁמִין קַב בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּשְׁבִּיחַ נִיזָּק, וְלֹא קַב בְּבֵית כּוֹר – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁפּוֹגֵם נִיזָּק; אֶלָּא בְּשִׁשִּׁים.

Rather, Rav Huna bar Manoaḥ said in the name of Rav Aḥa, 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.

הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּקַץ קַשְׁבָּא מֵחַבְרֵיהּ. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְדִידִי חֲזֵי לִי, וּתְלָתָא תָּאלָתָא בְּקִינָּא הֲווֹ קָיְימִי, וַהֲווֹ שָׁווּ מְאָה זוּזֵי. זִיל הַב לֵיהּ תְּלָתִין וּתְלָתָא וְתִילְתָּא. אָמַר: גַּבֵּי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא דְּדָאֵין דִּינָא דְּפָרְסָאָה, לְמָה לִי? אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּשִׁשִּׁים.

§ 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 Naḥman 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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אִם אָמְרוּ בְּנִזְקֵי מָמוֹנוֹ, יֹאמְרוּ בְּנִזְקֵי גוּפוֹ?!

Rava said to Rav Naḥman: If the Sages said that the court appraises damage caused by one’s 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’s body?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרָבָא: בְּנִזְקֵי גוּפוֹ מַאי דַּעְתָּיךְ – דְּתַנְיָא: הַמַּבְכִּיר כַּרְמוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ סְמָדַר – רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כַּמָּה הָיָה יָפֶה קוֹדֶם לָכֵן, וְכַמָּה הוּא יָפֶה לְאַחַר מִכָּאן; וְאִילּוּ בְּשִׁשִּׁים לָא קָתָנֵי?

Abaye said to Rava: With regard to damage caused by one’s 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?

אַטּוּ גַּבֵּי בְהֶמְתּוֹ נָמֵי מִי לָא תַּנְיָא כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא?! דְּתַנְיָא: קָטְמָה נְטִיעָה – רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, גּוֹזְרֵי גְזֵירוֹת שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם אוֹמְרִים: נְטִיעָה בַּת שְׁנָתָהּ – שְׁתֵּי כֶּסֶף, בַּת שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים – אַרְבָּעָה כֶּסֶף. אָכְלָה חֲזִיז – רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: נִידּוֹן בַּמְשׁוּיָּיר שֶׁבּוֹ, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: רוֹאִין אוֹתָהּ כַּמָּה הָיְתָה יָפָה, וְכַמָּה הִיא יָפָה.

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.