Bava Kamma 59a (נט.) — the Talmud in English

Ate

the animal

semadar,

that is, grapes that had not yet ripened:

Rabbi Yehoshua says: We view them as though they were grapes

that were fully ripe, since they

were ready to be harvested,

and he therefore pays accordingly.

And the Sages say: We view how much it was worth,

that is, how much the vineyard was worth for sale when it contained semadar,

and how much it is worth

now, after the grapes have been eaten, and he pays the difference [which is less than the amount for which Rabbi Yehoshua obligates him].

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: In what case is this statement said

when the damage is assessed in relation to the entire vineyard?

When it ate grape shoots,

before the grapes had blossomed [which is a stage preceding semadar],

and fig branches,

before the figs had blossomed.

But

if it

ate unripe figs

on a fig tree

or unripe grapes

that had already grown to the size of a white bean [a stage following semadar; the Gemara will soon discuss the status of semadar itself], then the value of the fruit itself that it ate is assessed, and

we view them as though

they were

grapes

that were fully ripe and

ready to be harvested,

and he therefore pays accordingly.

And Abaye proves:

In any event, it teaches

in the beraita,

“And the Sages say: We view them according to how much it was worth and how much it is worth.”

The assessment is made according to the vineyard that remains,

and it does not teach

that the item eaten by the animal is assessed

at one-sixtieth,

in relation to a vineyard sixty times larger than the amount it ate, measuring how much its value was diminished by the eating.

But in the case of damage caused by one’s property, it is certainly assessed at one-sixtieth!

Rather, what can you say?

That the intent of the Sages is indeed that it is assessed

at one-sixtieth.

And if so,

here too

in the beraita concerning damage caused by one’s body, explain that the assessment is made

at one-sixtieth,

and you have no proof for distinguishing between damage caused by one’s property and damage caused by one’s body.

Abaye said: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Yishmael stated the same matter,

that the animal’s eating is assessed not according to the fruit’s present state, but according to what it would have been worth had it remained in the field and grown to completion.

And Abaye explains:

“Rabbi Yosei HaGelili”—that which we said.

For he stated in the beraita above that it is assessed as part of the produce remaining.

Rabbi Yishmael

is likewise found to hold this way,

as it is taught:

It is stated in the Torah, in the passage concerning damage caused by an animal’s tooth and foot,

“He shall pay from the best of his field and the best of his vineyard”—

“the best of the field of the injured party, and the best of the vineyard of the injured party.”

The owner of the animal must pay according to the finest plot in the injured party’s field, and not according to the particular plot that was damaged,

the words of Rabbi Yishmael [

and below the Gemara will explain his words differently].

Rabbi Akiva says: The verse did not come

to impose such a severe requirement on the one who caused the damage, that he should pay more than the amount of the damage he caused,

rather

the verse came

to collect for the injured parties

the value of the plot that was damaged,

from the finest-quality land.

If the one who caused the damage has no money and pays with land, he must pay from the finest land that he owns.

And this can be derived by a kal va-chomer with regard to consecrated property.

One who damages consecrated property must pay the Temple from the finest of his property.

And the Gemara asked earlier, in the first chapter [6b], concerning Rabbi Yishmael’s statement: How is it possible to say that if an animal ate an inferior plot, the one who caused the damage must pay according to a superior plot?

And do not say

that the answer is as

Rav Idi bar Avin

said,

that the verse is speaking

of a case where it ate one plot among other plots, and we do not know whether

the particular plot that it ate

was inferior or was superior, for the verse says

[according to Rabbi Yishmael]:

“Go and pay for the superior one from the best available now!”

The one who caused the damage must pay from the best of the injured party’s field, meaning that the eaten plot is treated as though it had been the injured party’s finest plot.

For this is not the correct answer for explaining Rabbi Yishmael’s words,

as we do not say

that the one who caused the damage must pay, on account of the uncertainty, according to the finest plot.

What is the reason?

Because

the burden of proof rests upon the claimant!

The injured party must bring proof that a superior plot was in fact damaged, and as long as he has not brought such proof, the one who caused the damage is obligated to pay only according to the most inferior plot in his field.

Rather, the verse is not speaking at all of uncertainty as to which plot was eaten. And what Rabbi Yishmael said, “the best of the field of the injured party,” means that the one who caused the damage pays the injured party for that plot which was eaten, not according to what it is worth now, in the middle of its growth,

but according to the best that is yet to come,

according to what it is destined to become worth as it improves and develops.

And what is that?

How is this assessed?

According to how it would have turned out.

According to what it could have been worth at harvest time.

Rabbi Akiva then came and disagreed, holding that one does not pay according to the future price of the produce, but according to the present value of the plot.

The Gemara now discusses the explanation of the beraita:

The Master said: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: In what case is this statement said, when it ate grape shoots and fig branches.

The Gemara infers that only if it ate grape shoots, which is the stage before blossoming, does Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda say that the damage is assessed in relation to the entire vineyard, and not according to the value of the particular fruit that was damaged.

But

if the grapes had already blossomed and reached

the semadar stage,

their status is that of fully developed fruit, and the damaged fruit itself is assessed, and

we view them as though

they were

grapes

that were

ready to be harvested.

And according to this, it is difficult, for

say the latter clause

of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda’s statement, which implies that specifically when

it ate unripe figs or unripe grapes,

which is a later stage than semadar,

it is that we view them as though

they were

grapes ready to be harvested.

But

if they were only

semadar,

their status is not that of fully developed fruit; rather, the damage is assessed in relation to the entire vineyard, and

we view how much it is worth

now, after the damage,

and how much it was worth

beforehand.

It follows that with regard to semadar, Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda’s statements contradict one another, from the first clause to the latter clause!?

The Gemara answers:

Ravina said: Combine and teach,

that is, add semadar to Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda’s statement, since he already holds from that stage that its status is that of fully developed fruit, like pagim and boser.

And this is what Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda said:

In what case is this statement said

that the damage is assessed in relation to the vineyard,

when it ate grape shoots and fig branches. But if it ate semadar

or

unripe figs or unripe grapes, we view them as though

they were

grapes ready to be harvested.

And we challenge this:

If so, Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda is identical with Rabbi Yehoshua!

For he too holds that semadar has the status of fully developed fruit. If so, in what did Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree!?

And we answer:

The difference between them concerns the weakening of the grapevine,

whether the payment must be reduced by the benefit the injured party derives from the fact that the grapes that were eaten would have weakened the grapevines and drawn their moisture had they remained until the harvest. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree with regard to this.

But they did not specify,

and we do not know which of them holds that the weakening of the grapevine is deducted, and which holds that it is not deducted.

Abaye said: They did specify, and they did specify!

It can be proven from another source which of them holds that the weakening of the grapevine is deducted.

And Abaye continues:

Which tanna

of these two tannaim

is concerned,

holding that at the time of payment one takes into account

the weakening of the grapevine?

It is Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda!

As it is taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya:

The

rapist

of a virgin girl

does not pay compensation for the pain

that she suffered as a result of the rape,

because in the end she was destined to suffer

this pain

with her husband.

They said to him: A woman who has intercourse willingly

with her husband, who experiences no pain,

is not comparable to one who has intercourse under duress,

who does experience pain.

It is evident that Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda holds that future events are also taken into account in assessing damage, and that the payment is reduced as a result of this calculation. If so, he is the one who holds that we take into account the weakening of the grapevine.

Abaye said: These tannaim,

cited below,

and Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda stated the same matter.

They take into account what may occur in the future when assessing damage.

If someone pushed a pregnant woman, causing her to miscarry, the person who struck her must pay the husband “the value of the fetuses,” in addition to the “damage” and “pain” that he must pay the woman.

As it is taught: Rabbi Yosei says: Deduct the midwife’s fee.

The amount of the value of the fetuses is reduced by the sum that the husband saved and gained by not having to hire a midwife for his wife as a result of the miscarriage.

Ben Azzai says: Deduct the food expenses.

The amount is reduced by what the husband gained by not having to add to his wife’s food allowance during her weakness before the birth.

Thus, these tannaim too hold that future expenses saved as a result of the damage are taken into account and deducted from the payment.

The Gemara explains the tannaim’s dispute regarding the deduction from the value of the fetuses.

The one who says: Deduct the midwife’s fee—certainly

holds that one should

deduct the food expenses,

reducing the food expenses, since she certainly would have required additional nourishment had she reached the end of the pregnancy.

And the one who says: Deduct the food expenses

holds that specifically the food expenses are deducted,

but the midwife’s fee,

that is, the midwife’s expenses,

is not

deducted, because

he said to him

—the husband:

“My wife is clever!”

She herself is a “clever woman” [a midwife],

and it is not only that she would not need a midwife,

but she could give birth by herself, so you have not saved me the expense of a midwife.

The Gemara now returns to the beginning of the sugya, concerning the man who cut down another’s palm tree: How is the damage assessed?

Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, performed an action,

that is, they issued a practical ruling,

in accordance with Rav Naḥman,

who held that the cut-down palm tree is assessed

at one-sixtieth,

in relation to sixty times its size. This means that not only in the case of damage caused by one’s property, but even in the case of damage caused by one’s body, the damaged object itself is not assessed; rather, the assessment is made in relation to a broader area, according to how much its value was diminished as a result of the damage.

Another version: Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, assessed the palm tree together with the small plot of land.

They assessed the damage caused by cutting down the palm tree in relation to the small parcel of land in which the tree stood.

And the halakha is in accordance with Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, with regard to an Aramaean date palm.

This is referring to an ordinary date palm, whose value is not assessed on its own, but in relation to a larger area.

And the halakha is in accordance with the Exilarch,

who assessed the value of the date palm on its own,

with regard to a Persian date palm,

which is very valuable, and therefore is assessed on its own.

And the Gemara relates an incident involving

Eliezer Ze'eira,