Bava Kamma 59a — the Talmud in English

It ate

the animal

unripe grapes,

which are grapes that have not ripened:

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

completely ripe, since they

are destined to be harvested,

and accordingly he pays.

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

how much the vineyard was worth to be sold when it contained unripe grapes,

and how much it is worth

now, after the grapes were eaten, and he pays the difference [which is less than Rabbi Joshua requires].

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

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

When it ate the shoots of grapevines,

when the grapes had not yet flowered [and this is a stage before unripe grapes],

and the shoots of fig trees,

before the figs flowered.

But

if

it ate unripe figs

on a fig tree

or unripe grapes

on grapevines, which had already grown and reached the size of a white bean [and this is a stage after unripe grapes; the Gemara will immediately discuss the status of the unripe grapes themselves], then the value of the fruit itself that it ate is assessed, and

we view them as though

they were

grapes

completely ripe, which

are destined to be harvested,

and accordingly he pays.

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.”

They assess according to the existing vineyard,

and it does not teach

that they assess what the animal ate

at one-sixtieth,

in relation to a vineyard sixty times larger than what it ate, how much its value was diminished because of the eating.

But concerning damage caused by one’s property, certainly one assesses at one-sixtieth!

Rather, what can you say?

That the intention of the Sages is indeed that they assess

at one-sixtieth.

And if so,

so too

in the beraita concerning damage caused by one’s body, explain that the intention is that they assess

at one-sixtieth,

and you have no proof to distinguish between damage caused by one’s property and damage caused by one’s body.

Abaye said: Rabbi Yose the Galilean and Rabbi Ishmael stated one matter,

that they assess what the animal ate not according to the present state of the fruit, but according to how much it would have been worth had it remained in the field and grown fully.

And Abaye explains:

Rabbi Yose the Galilean—the one we stated.

For he said in the earlier beraita that it is assessed according to what remains in it.

Rabbi Ishmael:

we find that he holds so,

as it was taught:

It is stated in the Torah in the passage concerning 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.

He must pay according to the finest bed in the injured party’s field, and not according to the bed that caused the damage,

the words of Rabbi Ishmael [and below the Gemara will explain his words’ significance in another manner].

and below the Gemara will explain his words differently].

Rabbi Akiva says: The verse did not come

to be so stringent upon the one who caused the damage that he should pay more than what he damaged,

but

the verse came

to collect for the injured parties

that they should pay the injured party the value of the bed that they damaged for him,

from the highest-quality land.

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

And a kal va-chomer for consecrated property.

For one who damages consecrated property must pay the consecrated property from the highest-quality property of his assets.

And the Gemara asked above, in the first chapter [6b], concerning Rabbi Ishmael’s words: How is it possible to say that if the animal ate an inferior bed, the one who caused the damage pays according to a superior bed?

And do not say

that the answer to this is as

Rav Idi bar Avin

said,

that the verse is speaking

of a case where it ate a bed among the beds, and we do not know whether

this bed that it ate

was inferior or was superior, for it says

the verse [according to Rabbi Ishmael]:

“Arise, pay for a superior one from the best that exists now!”

The one who caused the damage should pay from the injured party’s best field—that is, as though the bed that was eaten had been the injured party’s finest bed.

For this is not the correct answer for explaining Rabbi Ishmael’s words;

for thus we do not say

that the one who caused the damage pays because of the uncertainty according to the finest bed.

What is the reason?

Because

the one who seeks to extract from his fellow bears the burden of proof!

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

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

but according to the best of what is later,

according to what it is destined to become worth and to improve to.

And what is that?

How is this assessed?

As it rises.

According to how much it could have been worth at the time of the harvest.

And Rabbi Akiva came and disagreed, for he does not pay according to the future price of the produce, but according to the value of the bed now.

And now the Gemara discusses the explanation of the beraita:

The Master said: Rabbi Shimon ben Judah says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: In what case is this statement said—that it ate the shoots of grapevines and the shoots of fig trees?

And the Gemara infers that only if it ate the shoots of grapevines, which is the stage before flowering, does Rabbi Shimon ben Judah say that the damage is assessed in relation to the entire vineyard, and not according to the value of the fruit itself that was damaged.

But

if the grapes had already flowered and reached

the unripe-grape stage,

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

we view them as though

they were

grapes

that

are destined to be harvested.

And according to this it is difficult, for

let us say the latter clause

of Rabbi Shimon ben Judah’s words, from which it is implicit that specifically when

it ate unripe figs or unripe grapes,

which is a later stage than unripe grapes,

it is that we view them as though

they were

grapes destined to be harvested.

But

if they were only

unripe grapes,

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

we view them according to how much it is worth

now, after the damage,

and how much it was worth

before.

It follows that concerning unripe grapes, Rabbi Shimon ben Judah’s words contradict themselves from the opening clause to the latter clause!?

And the Gemara answers:

Ravina said: Join and teach,

add the unripe grapes to Rabbi Shimon ben Judah’s words, for already from this stage he holds that their status is that of fully formed fruit, like unripe figs and unripe grapes.

And this is what Rabbi Shimon ben Judah said:

In what case is this statement said

that the damage is assessed in relation to the vineyard?

When it ate the shoots of grapevines and the shoots of fig trees. But if it ate unripe grapes

or

unripe figs or unripe grapes, we view them as though

they were

grapes destined to be harvested.

And we raise an objection:

If so, Rabbi Shimon ben Judah is Rabbi Joshua!

For he too holds concerning unripe grapes that they have the status of fully formed fruit; if so, in what do Rabbi Shimon ben Judah and Rabbi Joshua disagree!?

And we answer:

There is a difference between them concerning the weakening of the grapevine,

whether the profit of the injured party resulting from the fact that the grapes that were eaten would have weakened the grapevines and drawn their moisture from them had they remained until the harvest must be deducted from the payment. In this Rabbi Shimon ben Judah and Rabbi Joshua disagree.

And it is not determined,

it is not known which of them holds that the weakening of the grapevine is deducted, and which of them holds that the weakening of the grapevine is not deducted.

Abaye said: It is determined and it is determined!

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

And Abaye continues:

Which one is the tanna,

which of these two tannaim is it

who is concerned,

who holds that at the time of payment one takes account

of the weakening of the grapevine?

It is Rabbi Shimon ben Judah!

As it was taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Judah says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya:

The

one who violates

a virgin girl

does not pay the pain

that she suffered because of the violation,

because in the end she is destined to suffer

this pain

under her husband.

They said to him: One who has intercourse willingly

with her husband, for she has no pain,

is not comparable to one with whom intercourse is had under duress,

for she has pain.

It follows that Rabbi Shimon ben Judah holds that in assessing the damage one takes into account future events as well, and deducts from the payment as a result of this calculation. If so, he is the one who holds that we are concerned with the weakening of the grapevine.

Abaye said: These tannaim,

who are brought below,

and Rabbi Shimon ben Judah stated one matter.

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

One who pushed a pregnant woman, and as a result the woman miscarried, the man who struck her is obligated to pay “the value of the offspring” to the husband, in addition to the “damage” and “pain” that he is obligated to pay the woman.

As it was taught: Rabbi Yose says: Deduct the midwife.

They deduct [subtract] from the payment of the value of the offspring the amount that the husband saved and gained by not needing to hire a midwife for his wife as a result of the miscarriage.

Ben Azzai says: Deduct food.

They deduct what the husband gained by not needing to add to her sustenance during her weakness before the birth.

It follows that these tannaim as well hold that the future expenses that will be saved as a result of the damage are taken into account, and are deducted from the payment.

And the Gemara explains the dispute of the tannaim concerning the deduction from the value of the offspring.

The one who says: Deduct the midwife— all the more so

does he hold

“deduct food,”

that the expenses of sustenance are deducted, for certainly she would have required additional sustenance had she reached the end of the pregnancy.

And the one who says: Deduct food

holds that specifically the food is deducted,

but “deduct the midwife,”

the expenses of the midwife,

not

are deducted, since

he said to him

the husband:

“My wife is clever!”

She herself is “clever” [a midwife],

and it is not necessary for a midwife,

for she does not need a midwife but can give birth by herself, and you did not save me the expenses of a midwife.

And now the Gemara returns to the beginning of the sugya, concerning that man who cut down his fellow’s date palm: how is the damage assessed?

Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Joshua, performed an act,

they issued a practical ruling,

in accordance with Rav Nahman,

that the date palm that was cut down is assessed

at one-sixtieth,

in relation to sixty times its value. That is, not only concerning damage caused by one’s property, but even concerning damage caused by one’s body, one likewise does not assess the damaged object itself, but 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 Joshua, assessed the date palm together with the small plot of land.

They assessed the damage caused by cutting down the date palm in relation to the small plot of field where the date palm stood.

And the halakha is in accordance with Rav Pappa and Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua in the case of an Aramaic date palm.

In the case of an ordinary date palm, which is not assessed on its own but in relation to an area larger than it

And the halakha is in accordance with the Exilarch,

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

in the case of a Persian date palm,

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

And the Gemara brings an incident involving

Eliezer Zeira,