Bava Kamma 7b (ז:) — the Talmud in English

And if so,

he should not be given even a small amount,

nor should he be given even up to half, since his land is actually worth two hundred zuz, and he is not poor.

And the Master said concerning this,

Rabba said this in order to resolve the difficulty:

It is necessary;

the beraita is speaking of a situation

where in Nisan the fields are expensive, and in Tishrei the fields are cheap.

The price of land [fields] is high at the beginning of the summer season [in Nisan] and low at the beginning of the winter season [in Tishrei]. For during the summer, after the harvest, the land was plowed and prepared for sowing, while in Tishrei it was sown. Consequently, the value of the land declined as winter approached, since the buyer no longer had the opportunity to sow it that year.

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

as everyone waits until Nisan and then sells,

since it is customary for all landowners to wait until Nisan to sell their land, and to sell it then at a higher price.

And

however,

this

person,

since he requires money,

because he is in need of funds,

sells at the current price,

selling his land now at its low, current price. Therefore, this person is not considered ordinarily poor, since his property will indeed be worth two hundred zuz in Nisan. Yet he is also not considered wealthy, since now, in Tishrei, his property is not worth two hundred zuz. Therefore, he is given poor man’s tithe up to half, because

it is customary for prices to decline up to half,

as it is customary for the price of fields in Tishrei to fall only to half their Nisan value [to one hundred zuz],

but it is not customary for prices to decline further,

as it is not customary for the price to fall by more than half; therefore, he receives only up to one hundred zuz. Abaye now returns to explain the contradiction between the verses concerning liability for damages in this manner:

And here too, with regard to damages,

the contradiction between the verses should likewise be explained as referring to a situation in which the price is high in Nisan and low in Tishrei. Therefore, if the damage occurred in Tishrei and the injured party comes to collect from the damager’s land,

his law is that he receives superior-quality land,

but according to the current low price.

And

however,

if he says to him

[the injured party to the damager]:

Give me mediocre-quality land, with a little extra,

give me slightly more than mediocre-quality land, according to the value of the damage [because mediocre-quality land is worth less than superior-quality land],

he says to him,

the damager can say to the injured party:

If you take what is due to you, take it at the current value.

If you take what is due to you, from superior-quality land, you may take it according to its current low value.

But if not,

if you do not take what is due to you from superior-quality land, but instead want mediocre-quality land,

take it at its future high value,

take mediocre-quality land according to the higher value it will have in Nisan. For according to that value, you will receive less than you would receive according to its currently low value.

And thus the verses are reconciled: The verse “the best of his field” teaches that his payment is from the best-quality land. And “he shall restore” comes to include even inferior-quality land, teaching us that if the injured party wishes to take inferior-quality land, rather than what is due to him from the best-quality land, he takes it according to the higher price of Nisan.

Rav Aḥa bar Ya'akov challenges this: If so,

according to your statement,

you have diminished the injured parties’ power with regard to mediocre-quality and inferior-quality land,

you have weakened his power in collecting from mediocre-quality and inferior-quality land. And this cannot be so.

For the Merciful One

said

even

from the best-quality land;

the verse comes to enhance the injured party’s power, stating that he receives even from the best-quality land, and all the more so he can collect from mediocre-quality and inferior-quality land.

And

if

you say, from mediocre-quality land

and inferior-quality land as well

no!

According to your statement, his power is diminished with regard to mediocre-quality and inferior-quality land, and he collects it only according to its future high value.

Rather, certainly, even from mediocre-quality and inferior-quality land he collects according to its current low value.

Now, after the Gemara rejected Abaye’s resolution, in which he attempted to compare the law of payment for damages to Rabba’s ruling and thereby resolve the apparent contradiction between the verses, the Gemara temporarily ceases discussing the apparent contradiction between the verses and presents other laws that may be compared to Rabba’s statement. Only afterward will the Gemara return to discuss and resolve the apparent contradiction between the verses.

Rather, Rav Aḥa bar Ya'akov said: If there is a case to which it can be compared, we compare it to a creditor.

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

the law of a creditor

is to collect

from mediocre-quality land,

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

if he says to him,

if the creditor says to the borrower:

Give me inferior-quality land, with a little extra,

give me slightly more than the inferior-quality land that you possess [because inferior-quality land is worth less than mediocre-quality land],

he can say to him,

the borrower can say to him:

If you take what is due to you,

if you take what is due to you, from mediocre-quality land, then

take it at the current value,

take it according to the current value of the land.

But

however,

if not,

if you do not take what is due to you from mediocre-quality land, but instead want inferior-quality land, then

take it according to its future high value,

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

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, strongly objected to this: The entire reason the Sages enacted that creditors collect from intermediate-quality land was so that people would not refrain from lending money, and

the lender to the borrower:

if so, according to your statement,

you have locked the door in the face of borrowers! By this, you are causing people still not to want to lend money, since

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

the lender says to the borrower:

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

“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,

“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.

Rather, Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said: If it is possible to compare it to anything, we compare it to a woman’s marriage contract. If it is appropriate to compare the matter to such a case and say that she collects according to the future high price, then we compare it to the דין of a woman’s marriage contract [the דין of a divorced woman collecting her marriage-contract debt from her husband’s property

when she comes to collect it during the month of Tishrei].

For a woman’s marriage contract, its דין is that it is collected from inferior-quality land, and its collection is made from the lowest-quality land.

And if she says to him [the woman to her husband], when she comes to collect during Tishrei:

“Give me intermediate-quality land with a little less,” give me intermediate-quality land with a slight reduction from what is due to me in inferior-quality land [because intermediate-quality land is worth more],

he says to her, her husband who divorced her can say to her:

“If you take according to your דין, take it at its present value;” if you collect from inferior-quality land, you will receive your due according to the inexpensive current rate.

“But if not,” if you do not wish to receive what is due to you except from intermediate-quality land, then

“take it according to the future high price,” you will receive it according to the expensive rate of Nisan. Since she has no right to collect from intermediate-quality land, he can say this.

The Gemara now returns to discuss the apparent contradiction between the verses regarding payment for damages:

Indeed, we have found a basis for comparing it to the manner stated by Rabba.

Nevertheless, there is a difficulty.

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 the best of it.

Payment for damages may be made with anything, even movable property, and we learn this from the verse “he shall restore.” However, whatever type of property the borrower gives as payment, he must give him the best of that type. Therefore, if he pays with movable property, he must give him the finest movable property. This is learned from the verse “the best.”

But the Gemara challenges this answer:

“The best of his field” is written!

If it were as you say, the Torah should have written only “the best.” Yet the Torah did not write this; rather, it wrote “the best of his field,” indicating that “the best” applies only to his field, and that he must pay from higher-quality land.

The Gemara therefore offers another answer:

Rather, when

they came,

Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, from the academy of Rav

interpreted it—they explained the verses as follows: Payment for damages may even be made from movable property, because

“Everything is considered the best!” All movable property is included in the category of “the best,” because the advantage of “the best” is that it can readily be converted into money.

Movable property can readily be converted into money, since

“if it is not sold here,”

“it can be sold in another town,” even if there is no demand for it in this place, there is demand for it elsewhere. Therefore, the Torah wrote “he shall restore,” indicating that he may pay with whatever he wishes, even with movable property,

“except for land, for which he must give him the best,” apart from one who pays with land, in which case he must give him specifically the finest land,

“so that buyers will leap at it,” so that it will be easy to sell and convert into money, since only good land is in demand among buyers.

Therefore, with regard to payment, the Torah wrote “his field,” indicating that he must pay specifically from the “best,” and not with lower-quality land, since it is less in demand and is unlike movable property, which he can sell even in another place.

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

He asked him

a question:

Rav Shmuel bar Abba of Akronya asked Rabbi Abba: When they assess,

when they come to collect the payment from land, how do they assess whether the land is of superior or inferior quality? Is it

according to his own property that they assess,

is the standard the damager’s fields, so that the finest among his fields is considered “the best,” and he must pay from it, even if he has a lower-quality field than it [which is inferior-quality among his fields] that is nevertheless equal in importance to the finest land of the general population?

Or is it according to the property of the world that they assess,

or is the standard based on the importance of land in the world at large, so that when the damager’s inferior-quality land is equal in importance to the world’s superior-quality land, it is sufficient for him to give the injured party his inferior-quality land, which is considered superior-quality land in the world?

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?

Does he intend to say that

“the best of his field, as the Merciful One stated,”

comes

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.

Or perhaps, to exclude even the property of the world.

Or perhaps Rabbi Akiva holds that the Torah’s intention is also to exclude the possibility that the damager give land equal to the superior-quality land of the world when he has land superior to it. Rather, he must give specifically the finest of his property. Rabbi Abba resolved the doubt:

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?!

And you wish to say that the intention is that he gives the best of the world’s property?! Surely, the assessment is certainly according to the damager’s land.

But Rav Shmuel bar Abba challenged this conclusion:

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 one who caused the damage collects from the best-quality land, the creditor from intermediate-quality land, and the wife from inferior-quality land. However, if

he has nothing

for this one

except best-quality land

alone—

all of them [

including the creditor and the wife]

collect from the best-quality land.

And if he had only

intermediate-quality land—

all of them [

including the injured party and the wife]

collect

from the

intermediate-quality land.

And if he had only

inferior-quality land—

all of them [

including the injured party and the creditor] collect from the

inferior-quality land,

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

If he had

three fields:

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

then this is the order of their collection: the payments for

damages,

they collect their debt

from

the

best-quality. And the creditor from

the

intermediate-quality. And the wife’s ketubah from

the

inferior-quality land.

And if he had only

best-quality and intermediate-quality land,

and he did not have inferior-quality land, then

the injured parties collect from the best-quality land, and the creditor and the wife’s ketubah from the intermediate-quality land.

That is, the injured parties and the creditor collect according to their law, while the wife also collects from intermediate-quality land, contrary to her law, because he has no inferior-quality land.

And if he had only

intermediate-quality and inferior-quality land

and he did not have best-quality land,

the injured parties and the creditor collect from the intermediate-quality land,

the creditor according to his law, and the injured parties also collect from the intermediate-quality land [because he has no best-quality land], while

the wife’s ketubah

according to its law

is collected from the inferior-quality land.