Bava Kamma 58b — the Talmud in English

And to guard it there,

he had to be especially careful concerning it, even lest it give birth there; and this is negligence even with regard to the giving birth.

And we conclude:

teyku!

We learned in the Mishna:

How does she pay for what she damaged?

They assess a seah in that field: how much it was worth and how much it is worth.

And we inquire concerning it:

From where are these words

that the assessment is not according to the value of the garden-bed that she ate in itself, but only by an assessment relative to the area of a seah in that field—how much the whole is worth less after the damage to the garden-bed?

Rav Mattana said: For the verse says [Exodus 22:4]

"

and it consumes in another's field"—

it teaches that they assess

the damage

upon,

relative to

another field.

And we raise an objection: Is

this

verse, "and it consumes in another's field,"

“

not

needed,

for there is a need for it in order to expound from it that he is liable specifically when it damaged in another person's field,

to exclude,

and to exclude a case where it damaged in

the public domain,

for which he is exempt? And if so, how is it possible to expound from it also that they assess upon the basis of another field?

And we answer:

If so,

if the verse had come only to exclude the public domain,

the Merciful One should write

"and it consumes in his fellow's field."

Alternatively,

it should have written, "and it consumes

another field."

What

is the reason that the verse said

"

in another field"? In order to expound this also:

that they assess upon the basis of another field.

that the damage is assessed along with another field.

And we raise an objection:

And say,

why should it not be said that

the entire

verse

came for this purpose!

That the verse came only to expound that they assess upon the basis of another field, whereas the second exposition,

to exclude the public domain,

from where do we know it?

And we answer:

If so,

if "in another field" came only to teach the manner of payment for the damage,

the Merciful One should write it

"in another field"

with regard to payments,

where the Torah speaks about payment for the damage. And thus the verse would say:

"From the best of his field and from the best of his vineyard he shall pay, in another field."

Why did the Merciful One write it,

why did the Torah write this

with regard to

"

and it consumes,"

which concerns the matter of the damage done by the animal?

Learn from it two things!

The verse came to teach two things: that he is liable specifically when it damaged in another field and not when it damaged in the public domain, and that they assess upon the basis of another field.

And we inquire concerning it: What is stated in the Mishna, that they assess a seah in that field,

how do they assess it?

How do they evaluate the value of that seah? The Gemara brings a dispute among the amoraim as to how the assessment is carried out:

Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina said:

They assess

one seah against sixty seahs.

They do not assess how much one seah is worth by itself, since in that case the damager suffers a loss, because a seah by itself is expensive, as people generally do not sell such a small plot of field of only one seah, and a poor person who cannot afford to buy anything except a field of one seah pays a high price for it; consequently, the assessment of the damage caused by the absence of one garden-bed in that field is also high.

Rather, they make two assessments. First they assess how much a field of sixty seahs is worth, and according to this they calculate proportionally the value of one seah. Then they assess how much the value of the seah was diminished because of the absence of this garden-bed that the animal ate. And they do not directly calculate the garden-bed in relation to a field of sixty seahs, because in that case the injured party would lose entirely: the absence of one garden-bed in such a large field is not noticeable at all, and the field is not diminished in value on account of it. But in relation to one seah, the deficiency is noticeable. Therefore the Mishna stated that they assess a seah in that field. Rashi.

Rabbi Yannai said:

They assess

half a seah,

half a seah,

against sixty half-seahs

[half-seahs]. That is, thirty seahs.

According to his view as well, they make two assessments: first they assess how much a field of thirty seahs is worth [and not of sixty seahs, because in that case the injured party would lose, since the price of a field of sixty seahs is low, as there are no eager buyers for it, because it is too large for an ordinary person and too small for a wealthy person. Consequently, the assessment of the damage is also low].

And after they assess the value of a field of thirty seahs, they calculate the value of one seah, and assess the decrease in the value of the seah resulting from the eating of the garden-bed.

Hezekiah said: One stalk against sixty stalks.

They make only one assessment: they assess what it ate in a ratio of sixty times its amount, that is, how much all the produce that is sixty times the value of the eaten produce was diminished as a result of the eating.

It was objected

from that which was taught in a beraita:

If she ate a kav or two kavs

[a kav is one-sixth of a seah],

we do not say that she pays their value

according to their market value,

but rather we regard it as though

what she ate

were a small garden-bed, and we assess it.

And the Gemara proves: What does it mean,

is it not

the intention of the beraita to say that they assess that small garden-bed

by itself,

and not in relation to another field?

And this is difficult for all the amoraim above, who explain that the assessment is in relation to another field!?

And we answer:

No,

the intention of the beraita is not so. Rather, the intention of the beraita is to say that they assess that garden-bed

at sixty,

as the amoraim above explain, each according to his view.

The Sages taught: They do not assess a kav, because it improves it, nor a kor,

[thirty seahs],

because it diminishes it.

And we inquire concerning it:

What is the tanna saying

in the beraita?

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said: This is what he is saying: They do not assess a kav against sixty kavs,

if she ate a kav, they do not assess it in relation to a field of sixty kavs,

because it benefits the damager!

The damager gains from this, because a field of sixty kavs has a low price, since there are no eager buyers for it: for a poor person this is too much, and for an average person, and certainly for a wealthy person, it is too little. Furthermore, the absence of one kav is not noticeable within a field of sixty kavs.

Nor a kor against sixty kors.

If she ate a kor of grain, they do not assess it in relation to a field of sixty kors,

because it diminishes the damager.

The damager loses from this, because a field of sixty kors has a high price, since it is difficult to obtain a field so large, and a wealthy person who wishes to purchase such a field is prepared to pay much more than its value. Furthermore, the damage is great, since the absence of an entire kor is very noticeable in the field.

Rather, they assess every seah that was eaten in relation to a field of sixty seahs.

Rav Huna bar Menaḥem challenged this:

If so, that the assessment is one seah against sixty seahs,

this "

and not

a beit kor"

that the beraita stated is not a proper expression. Rather,

"nor a kor"

should it have said,

this is what the tanna should have said, corresponding to the first clause, in which it says “they do not assess a kav,” and does not say “a beit kav”?

And we answer:

Rather, Rav Huna bar Menaḥem said in the name of Rav Aha son of Rav Ika: This is what it teaches:

They do not assess a kav by itself,

how much that kav that she ate is worth,

because it benefits the injured party.

For the injured party gains, since it is worth a great deal.

Nor a kav in a beit kor,

they do not assess the kav in relation to a beit kor,

because it diminishes the injured party.

The injured party loses in such an assessment, because the absence of one kav is not noticeable in a field of a beit kor.

Rather, against sixty.

They assess the kav in relation to sixty kavs.

The Gemara brings an incident concerning

a certain man who cut

down

a kashba

a palm tree

belonging to his fellow.

He came before the Exilarch,

to bring him to judgment for the loss of the palm tree.

He said to him

the Exilarch to the damager:

I myself saw it,

I saw the palm tree,

and three palm trees stood in one cluster,

there were three palm trees there, one next to the other, as though they were in one “nest,”

and they were worth one hundred zuz,

all three of them were worth one hundred zuz. Therefore,

go and give him

pay him

thirty-three and one-third,

thirty-three zuz and another one-third of a zuz, that is, one-third of one hundred zuz.

He said

the damager: To go to judgment

before the Exilarch, who judges Persian law,

for he judges according to Persian law, not according to Torah law,

why do I need

to go to be judged before him?! For according to Torah law, they do not assess the palm tree by itself, but in relation to another field.

He came,

the damager went and came

before Rav Nahman.

Rav Nahman said to him

:

At sixty

the palm tree must be assessed, in relation to an area of sixty palm trees, in accordance with the law of our Mishna.

Rava said to Rav Nahman

:

If they said

in the Mishna that they assess at sixty

concerning damages caused by property,

when his animal ate and caused damage,

will they say

the same also

concerning damages caused by his person,

when he himself caused damage with his hands, cutting down the palm tree? For damage that a person himself causes is more severe, and perhaps in such a case they did not ease the damager’s obligation by assessing at sixty!?

Abaye said to Rava: As for damages caused by his person, what is your view,

that you hold that they do not assess in it at sixty? That is because you inferred it from a beraita:

For it was taught: One who hastens,

who destroys and consumes

his fellow’s vineyard,

when the grapes are at the stage of

the semadar,

when they are still small, at the very beginning of flowering,

we see how beautiful it was

how much the vineyard was worth

beforehand, and how beautiful it is afterward

after the damage.

But it does not teach “at sixty”!

They assess what he destroyed in relation to sixty times its amount. It follows that concerning damages caused by his person, the law of sixty was not stated?

But there is no proof from this.

For

is it so

that

with regard to

damages caused by

his animal, too, was a beraita not taught in this manner!?

For we find a beraita dealing with damages caused by his property that does not mention the law of assessment at sixty, and nevertheless we explain it as intending this. If so, also in the beraita concerning damages caused by his person, we shall explain it in this manner. Thus you have no proof whatsoever to distinguish between damages caused by his person and damages caused by his property!

For it was taught:

an animal

that

entered the injured party’s domain, and

cut off

the head of a

sapling

(a young tree).

Rabbi Yosei says: The decree-imposers in Jerusalem,

judges who would impose fines to pay even more than the obligation, would

say:

the payment for the damage of cutting off the head of a

one-year-old sapling—

two silver.

And for cutting off the head of a sapling

two years old—

four silver.

Ate

the animal the grain

haziz,

while it was young grain:

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: It is assessed according to what remains of it.

We wait to see what remains in the field, how much it will be worth when it grows and reaches the harvest, and according to this he pays for what was eaten.

And the Sages say:

one does not assess the grain itself that was eaten, but

sees it,

the land,

how much it was worth

how much it was worth to sell when it was with the young grain,

and how much it is worth

now after the damage, and he pays the difference.