Commentary for Bava Kamma 116:18

אטו גבי בהמתו נמי מי לא תניא כי האי גוונא דתניא קטמה נטיעה רבי יוסי אומר גוזרי גזירות שבירושלים אומרים נטיעה בת שנתה שתי כסף בת שתי שנים ארבעה כסף אכלה חזיז רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר נידון במשוייר שבו וחכמים אומרים רואין אותה כמה היתה יפה וכמה היא יפה

— R. Huna b. Manoah therefore said in the name of R. Aha the son of R. Ika: What is meant is this: The valuation is made neither of a <i>kab</i> by itself, as this would be too great an advantage to the plaintiff, nor of a <i>kab</i> in conjunction with an area required for a <i>kor</i> of seed, as this would be too great a disadvantage for the plaintiff. It must therefore be made only in conjunction with sixty [times as much]. A certain person cut down a date-tree belonging to a neighbour. When he appeared before the Exilarch, the latter said to him: 'I myself saw the place; three date-trees stood close together<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in one nest', or 'place'. ');">¹⁶</span> and they were worth one hundred <i>zuz</i>. Go therefore and pay the other party thirty-three and a third [<i>zuz</i>].' Said the defendant: 'What have I to do with an Exilarch who judges in accordance with Persian Law?' He therefore appeared before R. Nahman, who said to him [that the valuation should be made] in conjunction with sixty [times as much]. Said Raba to him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Nahman. ');">¹⁷</span> If the Sages ordained this valuation in the case of chattels doing damage, would they do the same in the case of damage done by Man with his body? — Abaye, however, said to Raba: In regard to damage done by Man with his body, what is your opinion [if not] that which was taught: 'If a man prunes [the berries from] a neighbour's vineyard while still in the budding stage, it has to be ascertained how much it was worth previously and how much it is worth afterwards', but nothing is said of valuation in conjunction with sixty [times as much]? But has it not been taught similarly with respect to [damage done by] Cattle? For it was taught: If [a beast] breaks off a plant, R. Jose says that the Legislators of [public enactments<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] Admon and Hanan b. Abishalom, identical with the 'Judges of Civil Law' [H] mentioned in Keth. XIII, 1 (Rashi). Little is known of their functions and power to enable us to explain their designation (Buchler, Das Synedrion, p. 113); cf. also Geiger, Urschrift, p. 119.] ');">¹⁸</span> in Jerusalem stated that if the plant was of the first year, two silver pieces<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., two ma'ahs which were a third of a denar; cf. Glos. ');">¹⁹</span> [should be paid] but if it was in its second year, four silver pieces [should be paid]. If it consumed young blades of grain, R. Jose the Galilean says that it has to be considered in the light of the future value of that which was left in the field. The Sages, however, say that it has to be ascertained how much it [the field] was worth [previously] and how much it is worth [now].

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 116:18. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.