Bava Kamma 7b — the Talmud in English

And if so,

they should not give him even a small amount either,

it is likewise not appropriate to give him even up to half, since his lands are truly worth two hundred zuz, and he is not poor.

And the master said concerning it,

Rabba said concerning this, to reconcile it:

It is necessary,

the beraita is speaking in a case

where in the days of Nisan the lands are expensive, and in the days of Tishrei the lands are cheap,

the price of the lands [the fields] is high at the beginning of the summer season [in the days of Nisan], and low at the beginning of the winter season [in the days of Tishrei]. For in the summer days, after the harvest, they would plow and prepare the land for sowing, whereas in Tishrei they would sow. Therefore, the value of the lands would decline toward the winter, since the buyer no longer had the opportunity to sow them in that year.

And the beraita is speaking about the days of Tishrei, when prices decline,

for everyone waits until Nisan and sells,

it is the way of all sellers of land to wait until the days of Nisan before selling it, and to sell then at a high price.

And

however,

this one,

this person,

since he requires money,

since he is in need of funds,

sells at the present time,

he sells his lands now at their low, current price. Therefore, this person is not in the category of an ordinary poor person, since his property will indeed be worth two hundred zuz in Nisan. However, he is also not in the category of a wealthy person, since now, in Tishrei, his property is not worth two hundred zuz. Therefore, they give him the poor tithe up to half, because

up to half, it is normal for [the price] to decline,

it is the way of field prices to decline in Tishrei only to half their value in Nisan [up to one hundred zuz]],

more than that, it is not normal for [the price] to decline,

the price does not normally decline by more than half; therefore he receives only up to one hundred zuz. And now Abaye returns to explain in this manner the contradiction between the verses concerning the law of payments for damages:

And here too, concerning damages,

and likewise concerning the contradiction between the verses, it should be explained that it is speaking of a situation in which the price is high in Nisan and low in Tishrei. Therefore, if they caused damage in Tishrei, and he comes to collect from the damager’s lands,

his law is [to collect] from the best land,

he receives from the best land according to the low price of the present time.

And

however,

if he says to him

[the injured party to the damager]:

“Give me slightly more ordinary land,”

give me slightly more than ordinary land according to the value of the damage [because ordinary land is worth less than the best land]],

he says to him,

the damager can say to the injured party:

“If you take according to your law, take according to the present value.”

If you take according to your law, from the best land, you may take according to the low value of the present time.

“But if not,”

and if you do not take according to your law from the best land, but you desire ordinary land,

“take it according to the future high price,”

take ordinary land according to the high value that the land will have in Nisan! For according to this value he will receive less than he would receive according to the low value of the present time.

And thus the verses are reconciled: the verse “the best of his field” teaches that his law is [to receive] from the best. And “he shall restore” comes to include even bran, and teaches us that if the injured party desires to take inferior land, and not according to his law from the best, he takes according to the expensive price of Nisan.

Rav Aha bar Yaakov raises an objection against it: “If so,

according to your words,

you have weakened the power of damages with regard to ordinary and inferior land,

you have diminished his power of the injured party in collecting ordinary and inferior land. And this cannot be.

For the Merciful One

said

even

from the best,

the verse came to improve the power of the injured party, to say that he receives even from the best, and all the more so that he has the power to collect from ordinary and inferior land,

and

if

you said, from ordinary land

and inferior land as well

no!

according to your words, with regard to ordinary and inferior land his power is diminished, and he collects only according to the future high price.”

Rather, certainly, even from ordinary and inferior land he collects according to the low value of the present time.

And now, after the Gemara rejected Abaye’s reconciliation, in which he attempted to compare the law of payment for damages to Rabba’s law and thereby reconcile the apparent contradiction between the verses, the Gemara interrupts, for the present, its discussion of the apparent contradiction in the verses, and brings other laws that can be compared to Rabba’s words. Only afterward will the Gemara continue to discuss and reconcile the apparent contradiction in the verses.

Rather, Rav Aha bar Yaakov said: “If there is something to which it can be compared, we compare it to a creditor.”

If it is possible to compare it to such a case and say that he collects according to the future high price, then it should be compared to the law of a creditor, because

the law of a creditor

is to collect

from ordinary land,

and when he comes to collect his debt in Tishrei from the debtor,

if he says to him,

if the creditor says to the debtor:

“Give me slightly more inferior land,”

give me slightly more than the inferior land that you have [because inferior land is worth less than ordinary land]],

he can say to him,

the debtor can say to him:

“If you take according to your law,

if you are taking according to your law, from ordinary land, then

take according to the present value,”

take according to the current value of the lands.

And

however,

if not,

if you are not taking according to your law from ordinary land, but you desire inferior land, then

“take according to the future high price,”

take according to the high land prices that will be in Nisan.

Rav Aḥa son of Rav Ika challenges it: the entire reason that the Sages enacted that creditors collect from intermediate land is so that people would not refrain from lending, and if so, according to your words, you have locked the door before borrowers! By this you cause people still not to want to lend money, since he says to him

the lender to the borrower:

If I had coins,

if the money were now in my possession and I had not lent it,

I would take according to the present price,

I would now purchase inferior land cheaply, according to the current price, but

now, since the coins are with you, I will take according to the future expensive price.

Now that my money is in your possession, I have no possibility of receiving inferior land in exchange for it except according to the expensive price of Nisan. And if so, lenders will refrain from lending because of this reason.

Therefore, certainly the lender will in such a case receive the inferior land according to the cheap price of now.

Rather, Rav Aḥa son of Rav Ika said: If it is possible to compare it, we compare it to a woman’s marriage contract. If it is possible to compare it to such a manner, and to say that he should collect according to the future expensive price, then we compare it to the דין of a woman’s marriage contract [the דין of a divorced woman collecting the debt of her marriage contract from her husband’s property]. For a woman’s marriage contract, its דין is with inferior land, its collection is made from the lesser land. And if she says to him [the woman to her husband], when she comes to collect in the days of Tishrei: Give me intermediate land, a little less,

“I would have taken it at its present value,” I would now have bought inferior-quality land with it cheaply, at the current price. However,

я купил бы сейчас на них дешевую землю низшего качества по ее нынешней цене. Но

“now that the money is in your possession, I will take it according to the future high price.” Now that my money is in your hands, I have no possibility of receiving inferior-quality land in exchange for it except according to the expensive price of Nisan. If so, lenders will refrain from lending for this reason.

Therefore, it is certain that in such a case the lender receives inferior-quality land at its present, inexpensive price.

give me intermediate land with a slight reduction from what is due to me with inferior land [because intermediate land is worth more],

he said to her,

her husband who divorced her can say to her:

If you take according to your דין, take according to the present price,

if you collect from inferior land, you will receive according to your דין, at the cheap price of now,

but if not,

if you do not wish to receive according to your דין except from intermediate land, then

take according to the future expensive price,

you will receive according to the expensive price of Nisan. And since she has no right to collect from intermediate land, he can say this.

Now the Gemara returns to discuss the apparent contradiction in the verses concerning payment for damages:

Indeed, we have found something to compare to the manner that Rabba said,

nevertheless, there is a difficulty.

For the contradiction between the verses—whether he must pay specifically from the best of his field or even from movable property—has still not been resolved.

Rabba said: Whatever he gives him, he must give him from the best.

The payment for damages can be with anything, even from movable property, and we learn this from the verse “he shall restore.” Rather, from each type that the borrower gives as payment, he must give him from the best of that type. Therefore, if he pays from movable property, he must give from the superior movable property. And this is learned from the verse “best.”

But the Gemara raises a difficulty against the answer:

But “the best of his field” is written!

If it were as you say, the Torah should have written only “best,” yet the Torah did not write this, but rather “the best of his field,” implying that “best” is stated only concerning his field, and that he must pay from superior land.

Therefore the Gemara answers another answer:

Rather, when [when they came]

Rav Pappa and Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua from the academy of Rav [from Rav’s academy]

explained it,

they explained the verses as follows: payment for damages can even be from movable property, because

everything is “best”!

All movable property is included within payment of “best,” because the advantage of “best” is that it is easy to turn it into money,

and movable property is easy to turn into money, since

if it is not sold here,

it is sold in another town,

even if there is no demand for it in this place, there is demand for it in another place. Therefore the Torah wrote “he shall restore,” meaning that he can pay from whatever he wants, even from movable property,

apart from land, for he must give him from the best,

apart from one who pays with land, in which case he must give him specifically superior land,

so that buyers will leap upon it,

so that it will be easy to sell it and turn it into money, for only good land has demand from buyers.

Therefore the Torah wrote concerning payment “his field,” so that he should pay specifically from the “best,” and not with inferior land, because it has less demand and is not like movable property, which he can sell even in another place.

Now the Gemara inquires what the standard for superior land is, to determine whether it is “best” or not:

He asked him [he asked]

Rav Shmuel bar Abba of Macronia asked Rabbi Abba: When they appraise,

when they come to collect the payment from land, how do we appraise the land, whether it is superior or inferior: is it

according to his own [land] they appraise,

is the standard the lands of the one who caused the damage, so that the best among his lands is considered “best,” and from it he must pay, even if he has a field inferior to it [which is the inferior land of his fields] but which is equal in importance to the superior land of ordinary people?

Or according to the world they appraise,

or perhaps the standard is according to the importance of lands in the world, so that when the inferior land of the one who caused the damage is equal in importance to the world’s superior land, it is sufficient that he give the injured party land from his inferior land, which is the world’s superior land?

The Gemara now inquires what the standard is for determining whether a field is of superior quality and thus qualifies as “the best”:

And above [6b], Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disputed whether the level of importance of the superior land that the Torah obligated him to give the injured party is measured according to the injured party’s superior land. And it is explained in the Gemara that they disputed a case in which the one who caused the damage has superior and inferior land, and his inferior land is equal to the injured party’s superior land. Rabbi Yishmael holds that we appraise according to the injured party; therefore, the one who caused the damage may give his inferior land. Rabbi Akiva holds that we follow the one who caused the damage, and he must give his superior land. Therefore the Gemara now explains according to whose view we have this doubt:

According to Rabbi Yishmael, you need not raise the question, for he says that we appraise according to the injured party,

the doubt is not according to Rabbi Yishmael, who holds that if the inferior land of the one who caused the damage is like the superior land of the injured party, the one who caused the damage pays with the inferior land, because according to him we certainly measure according to the superior land of the injured party, and there is no room to doubt whether the intention is the superior land of the world or that of the injured party.

When you raise the question, it is according to Rabbi Akiva, who says that we appraise according to the one who caused the damage.

The doubt is only according to Rabbi Akiva, who disagreed and said that we appraise according to the superior land of the one who caused the damage; therefore, in a case where the inferior land of the one who caused the damage is like the superior land of the injured party, he cannot give the inferior land, but must give from the superior land, as implied by the verse “he shall pay the best of his field,”

what

what is his intention?

Is his intention to say that “the best of his field” that the Merciful One said comes to exclude only that we do not follow the superior land of the injured party, but the Torah did not require him to pay from the superior land of the one who caused the damage; rather, he may also pay with the superior land of the world, and what Rabbi Yishmael said—that one cannot pay with land that is superior for the injured party and inferior for the one who caused the damage—applies only when it is not the superior land of the world, but if it were the superior land of the world, he may indeed pay with it?

Earlier [6b], Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disputed whether the level of quality of the superior land that the Torah obligates him to give the injured party is measured according to the injured party’s superior land. The Gemara explains that they disputed a case in which the damager has superior-quality and inferior-quality land, and his inferior-quality land is equal to the injured party’s superior-quality land. Rabbi Yishmael holds that it is assessed according to the injured party; therefore, the damager may give his inferior-quality land. Rabbi Akiva holds that it follows the damager; therefore, he must give his superior-quality land. The Gemara now explains according to whose view this doubt is raised:

According to Rabbi Yishmael, you need not raise the question, for he says that we assess according to the injured party’s property.

The doubt does not arise according to Rabbi Yishmael, who holds that if the damager’s inferior-quality land is equal to the injured party’s superior-quality land, the damager pays with the inferior-quality land. According to him, it is certainly measured according to the injured party’s superior-quality land, and there is no room to inquire whether the reference is to the finest land in the world or to the injured party’s finest land.

When you do raise the question, it is according to Rabbi Akiva, who says that we assess according to the damager’s property.

The doubt applies only according to Rabbi Akiva, who disagreed and said that the assessment follows the damager’s superior-quality land. Therefore, in a case where the damager’s inferior-quality land is equal to the injured party’s superior-quality land, he may not give the inferior-quality land; rather, he must give from the superior-quality land, as implied by the verse, “He shall pay from the best of his field.”

What

is his intention?

Or perhaps, to exclude the world as well,

or perhaps Rabbi Akiva holds that the intention of the Torah is also to exclude giving land equal to the superior land of the world, when the one who caused the damage has land superior to it; rather, he must give specifically the best of his property.

Rabbi Abba resolved the doubt:

to exclude

only the injured party’s superior-quality land,

of the injured party,

but the Torah did not require him to pay from the damager’s superior-quality land; rather, he may also pay with land that is of superior quality in the world at large? And Rabbi Yishmael’s statement that he may not pay with land that is superior-quality for the injured party and inferior-quality for the damager applies only when it is not superior-quality land in the world at large. But if it is superior-quality land in the world at large, he may indeed pay with it.

He said to him

Rabbi Abba: What side of the doubt is there here? For the Merciful One said “‘ the best of his field he shall pay,’” the Torah said that the one who caused the damage should pay the best of his field, whose plain meaning is that he should give from the best of his fields, and you say that they appraise according to the world?! And you want to say that the intention is that he should give the best of the world?! Surely it is certain that they appraise according to the lands of the one who caused the damage.

He said to him,

Rabbi Abba: What basis is there for this doubt?

The Merciful One said,

“the best of his field

he shall pay.” The Torah said that the damager must pay from the best of his field, whose plain meaning is that he gives from the best of his fields.

And you say that they assess according to the property of the world?!

But Rav Shmuel bar Abba raised a difficulty against this resolution:

He raised an objection from a beraita: One who was obligated to pay three debt payments—the payment for damages, payment for a loan debt, and payment to a woman for her marriage contract—the order of their collection is as follows:

He raised an objection from a beraita:

A person who was obligated to pay three debts—payment for damages, repayment of a loan, and payment to a woman for her marriage contract—the order of their collection is as follows:

The tortfeasor collects from the best-quality property, the creditor [the lender] from intermediate-quality property, and the woman from inferior-quality property. However, if

he has no

for this person

but best-quality property

alone—

all [

also the creditor and the woman]

collect from the best-quality property.

And if he had only land

of intermediate quality—

all [

also the injured party and the woman]

collect

from the

intermediate-quality property.

And if he had only land

of inferior quality—

all [

also the injured party and the creditor] collect from the

inferior-quality property,

and he is not obligated to purchase best-quality property in order to pay the injured party.

If he had

three fields:

best-quality, intermediate-quality, and inferior-quality,

this is therefore their order of collection: the payments of

damages,

collect their debt

from

the

best-quality property. And a creditor from

the

intermediate-quality property. And a woman's ketubah from

the

inferior-quality property.

And if he had only lands

of best quality and intermediate quality,

and he did not have inferior-quality land, then the

damages are from the best-quality property, the creditor and the woman's ketubah from the intermediate-quality property.

That is, the injured party and the creditor collect according to their law, and the woman also collects from intermediate-quality property, unlike her law, because he does not have inferior-quality property.

And if he had only lands

of intermediate quality and inferior quality and he did not have best-quality land, the

damages and creditor are from intermediate-quality property

; damages and creditor from intermediate-quality property,

the creditor according to his law, and the damages also collect from the intermediate-quality property [because he does not have best-quality land], and

the woman's ketubah

according to its law

from inferior-quality property.