Commentary for Gittin 96:16

אמר רבא אילו ידעינן דכחושה אכל משלם כחושה השתא דלא ידעינן משלם שמנה המוציא מחברו עליו הראיה אלא אמר רב אחא בר יעקב

So R. Ishmael. R. Akiba said: The whole purpose of the text is to allow compensation for damage to be recovered from the best property [of the defendant]: and all the more so in the case of the Sanctuary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.K. 6b. This is explained lower down. ');">¹⁴</span> Now according to R. Ishmael,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who apparently says that according to Scripture damage is to be estimated in all cases as if done to the best of the claimant's land. ');">¹⁵</span> if [a man's beast] ate the vegetables from a rich bed, he [naturally] repays the value of a rich bed, but if it ate from a poor bed is he to repay the value of a rich one? — R. Idi b. Abin said: We are dealing here with a case where it ate one bed out of a number and we do not know whether it was a rich one or a poor one; in this case he repays the value of the best. Said Raba. Seeing that if where we know that it ate a poor one he repays only the value of a poor one, here, where we do not know, is he to pay the value of a rich one? Does not the onus probandi fall on the claimant? — R. Aha b. Jacob therefore suggested

Explore commentary for Gittin 96:16. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.