Bava Kamma 59b — the Talmud in English

d

He would finish wearing black shoes.

He wore black shoes, as mourners customarily did, and

stood

in

the marketplace of Nehardea.

The people of the house of the Exilarch found him

The people of the Exilarch met him, and

said to him: Why are these shoes different?

Why are you wearing black shoes, as mourners do?

He said to them: I am mourning over Jerusalem,

because I am mourning the destruction of Jerusalem!

They said to him: Do you consider yourself

so important

as to mourn over Jerusalem?

They thought it was arrogance.

The people of the Exilarch regarded this as an arrogant practice on the part of Eliezer Zeira.

They brought him and imprisoned him,

They imprisoned him for this.

He said to them,

Eliezer Zeira said: Release me, because

I am a great scholar!

They said to him: How do we know

that you are a great scholar?

He said to them: Either you ask me a matter,

or you ask me a matter of halakha,

or I will ask you a matter.

I will ask you, and in this way you will be able to see that I am indeed a great scholar.

They said to him,

the people of the Exilarch:

You ask,

you ask!

He said to them: If one cuts unripe dates,

if someone cuts unripe dates from another person’s palm tree,

what must he pay?

They said to him: He pays the value of unripe dates,

whatever they are worth now, while they are still unripe.

He said to them:

But they would have become dates;

they were destined to grow and become ripe dates, which are worth more!

They said to him:

Indeed,

he pays the value of dates,

as though they were ripe.

He said to them: But he did not take ripe dates from him!

He did not steal ripe dates from him, but unripe ones; why should he pay as though they were ripe?

They said to him: You tell us,

you tell us what the law is!

He said to them: By a factor of sixty.

One assesses how much the value of the surrounding field has decreased, in an area sixty times the size of the palm tree, as a result of cutting off the dates, and he pays the difference. In this way he also pays for the dates as though they were ripe, because one who purchases a field where produce grows takes into account to some extent the future increase in the value of the produce and pays for the field accordingly. Thus, the future increase is also included in the assessment of the decrease.

They said to him: Who says this like you?

Who rules this way?

He said to them: Samuel is alive and his court still exists,

and it can be determined whether this is indeed the law.

They sent the matter before Samuel.

They sent the question to Samuel.

He said to them: He has spoken well to you,

that the damage is assessed

by a factor of sixty!

And they released him

from prison.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon says: If it ate fully developed produce,

it pays for fully developed produce: if it ate a se’a, it pays for a se’a; if two se’a, it pays for two se’a.

And we raise a question about this:

What is the reason

for Rabbi Shimon’s ruling that, in the case of fully developed produce, he pays according to the value of the produce itself and not in relation to the field?

And we answer: He holds that

that which the Merciful One said, “

And it consumed in another’s field,”

from which we derive:

It teaches that the produce is assessed on the basis of the field,

in relation to another field, and not the produce itself that was eaten.

This applies

only to produce that is not fully developed, which is

something that still requires the field,

as it still needs to grow in the field. But

this produce,

the fully developed produce,

which does not require the field, must be paid for according to its own value,

the value of the produce itself.

Rav Huna bar Chiyya said in the name of Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba: Rav adjudicated

and issued a practical ruling

in accordance with Rabbi Meir.

And he issued a definitive ruling,

teaching the students the established law for future generations, that the law is

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba explains:

Rav adjudicated in accordance with Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a beraita: The husband wrote

the

first

buyer

a

bill of sale for one field,

and she did not sign it for him.

The woman did not sign for the first buyer regarding the sale, thereby not acknowledging her husband’s sale. That is, she did not waive her right to collect her marriage settlement from that land. The husband then wrote a bill of sale for another field

to a

second

buyer, and she signed it for him.

The woman thereby waived her right to collect her marriage settlement from that field. The husband died and left no other property from which her marriage settlement could be collected.

This woman has

lost her marriage settlement!

She cannot collect it either from the first buyer or from the second. She cannot collect it from the first buyer even though she did not sign for him, because he was the first buyer. At the time he purchased the field, the second field still remained in the husband’s possession, and he could say to the woman: I left you a place from which to collect your marriage settlement. Therefore, even though the husband later sold the second field to someone else, she cannot collect from me; she must collect from the second field, which was “unencumbered” when I purchased the first field.

Nor can she collect from the second field, since she signed for him and waived her lien on that field,

the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

Although she cannot collect from the first buyer, since he left her a place from which to collect, nevertheless she can collect from the second buyer despite having signed her waiver for him, because

she can say: I did so only to give

him

pleasure, my husband!

I had no intention whatsoever of waiving the field as security for my marriage settlement. Therefore,

what claim do you have

against

me,

to take from me the field that is pledged to me!?

And Rav ruled

Rav

that the law is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, as we learned:

in our Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon says: If it ate fully developed produce, it pays for fully developed produce: if a se’a, a se’a; if two se’a, two se’a.

Mishna:

One who piles produce,

one who makes a pile from his produce

in another’s field without permission

of the field’s owner,

and the field owner’s animal eats it, he is exempt

the field owner is exempt from paying for the produce, since the pile was made without permission.

And if his animal is injured by it,

the field owner’s animal,

the owner of the pile is liable

to pay for the damage.

And if he piled it

in another’s field

with permission

of the field’s owner, and the field owner’s animal ate the produce,

the field owner is liable

to pay him for the produce.

Gemara:

And we raise a question about this:

Shall we say that we learned

in our Mishna

not in accordance with Rabbi?

For if it were in accordance with Rabbi, he says

that the homeowner is not liable for damage caused by his animal to another person’s produce that the person brought into his property, even with permission,

until the homeowner accepts upon himself

explicitly

to guard

the produce. Merely granting permission does not mean that he accepted responsibility for guarding it. Rather, it is as though he said to him: Enter and guard your produce yourself. Therefore, he is not liable for damage caused to it by his animal.

But our Mishna states that merely granting permission by the field owner is sufficient to make him liable when his animal eats another person’s pile.

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said: Here we are dealing with the guardian of the threshing floors

the guardian of the granaries,

of the threshing floors.

The Mishna is speaking about an open area where all the field owners make their piles in one place, one beside the other, and appoint a guardian there, and this guardian gave him permission to make his pile there. In such a case, even Rabbi agrees that the guardian is liable for damage caused to the produce.

Since he said to him,

the guardian

“Enter and pile!”

giving him permission to make his pile there,

“Enter, and I will guard it for you,” is what he meant.

It was as though the guardian said to him: Make your pile here, and I will guard it for you!

Therefore, the guardian is liable for the damage. But an ordinary grant of permission by a homeowner does not make him responsible for guarding the produce.

Mishna:

One who sends a fire by the hand of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor,

and they went and ignited it among the property of others,

is exempt

the sender

under human law,

as the court does not obligate him to pay for what was burned,

but he is liable under the laws of Heaven.

If he sent

the fire

by the hand of

a competent

person, the competent person is liable

to pay for the damage.

One brought the fire

the flame,

and another brought the wood

afterward, and ignited it with the fire, which spread and caused damage,

the one who brought the wood is liable,

because without the wood he brought, the fire would not have spread and caused damage.

One brought the wood

first,

and another brought

afterward

the fire,

and ignited the wood,

the one who brought the fire is liable,

since he created the conflagration.

Another person came and fanned it,

he blew on the fire and raised the flame,

the one who fanned it is liable,

and the first two, who brought the fire and the wood, are exempt.

If the wind fanned

the fire,

all of them are exempt.

Gemara:

Reish Lakish said in the name of Chizkiya: They taught

in the Mishna that one who sends a fire by the hand of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor is exempt under human law only

when he gave him

the sender

a coal, and he fanned it

the deaf-mute fanned it until it became a flame, went out, and caused damage.

But

if

he gave him a flame, he is liable,

the sender.

What is the reason?

Because

his actions,

those of the sender, who gave him a flame ready to cause damage,

caused it

to become a conflagration.

And Rabbi Yochanan said: Even if he gave him a flame,

also,

he is exempt,

the sender.

What is the reason?

Because

the grasp

[a term derived from “tongs”]

of the deaf-mute caused it

to him.

The deaf-mute’s taking hold of the flame, carrying it to the pile, caused the conflagration.

And the sender is not liable

the sender

until he gives him

to the deaf-mute

thorns

twigs,