Commentary for Bava Kamma 117:20

אליעזר זעירא

followed the view of R. Nahman and valued in conjunction with sixty times [as much]. According to another report, however, R. Papa and R. Huna the son of R. Joshua valued a palmtree in conjunction with the small piece of ground.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where a human being did damage with his body. ');">¹⁶</span> The law is in accordance with R. Papa and R. Huna the son of R. Joshua<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To value in conjunction with sixty times as much where a human being did damage with his body. ');">¹⁷</span> in the case of an Aramean palm,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is by itself of no great value. ');">¹⁸</span> but it is in accordance with the Exilarch<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To value the tree by itself. ');">¹⁹</span> in the case of a Persian palm.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is even by itself of considerable value. ');">²⁰</span> Eliezer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [V.l. Eleazar]. ');">²¹</span> Ze'era

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 117:20. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.