Bava Kamma 116

ולאסטמורי בגוה תיקו

it and indeed taken more care of it? — Let this remain undecided.

כיצד משלמת מה שהזיקה וכו': מנה"מ

HOW IS PAYMENT MADE FOR THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE DONE BY IT? BY COMPARING THE VALUE OF AN AREA IN THE FIELD REQUIRING ONE <i>SE'AH</i> OF SEED AS IT WAS [PREVIOUSLY] WITH WHAT ITS WORTH IS [NOW] etc. Whence is this derived? — R. Mattena said: Scripture says, And shall feed in another man's field<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 4. ');">¹</span>

אמר רב מתנה דאמר קרא (שמות כב, ד) ובער בשדה אחר מלמד ששמין על גב שדה אחר

to teach that the valuation should be made in conjunction with another field. But was this [verse] and shall feed in another man's field not required to exclude public ground [from being subject to this law]? — If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., were it intended only for that. ');">²</span>

האי ובער בשדה אחר מבעי ליה לאפוקי רה"ר

Scripture would have said 'and shall feed in a neighbour's field' or ['and shall consume] another man's field.' Why then is it said in another [man's] field [unless to teach that] the valuation should be made in conjunction with another field? Let us say then that the whole import [of this verse] was to convey only this ruling, there being thus no authority to exclude public ground? — If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 337, n. 7. ');">³</span>

א"כ לכתוב רחמנא ובער בשדה חבירו א"נ שדה אחר מאי בשדה אחר ששמין על גב שדה אחר

Scripture would have inserted this clause in the section dealing with payment, e.g., 'of the best of his own field and of the best of his own vineyard shall he make restitution [as valued] in conjunction with another field.' Why then did Scripture put it in juxtaposition with and shall feed unless to indicate that the two [rulings] are to be derived from it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. that public ground be excluded and that the valuation be made in conjunction with another field. ');">⁴</span>

ואימא כוליה להכי הוא דאתא לאפוקי רה"ר מנלן

How is the valuation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of an area requiring one se'ah of seed. ');">⁵</span>

אם כן לכתביה רחמנא גבי תשלומין (שמות כב, ד) מיטב שדהו ומיטב כרמו ישלם בשדה אחר ל"ל דכתביה רחמנא גבי ובער ש"מ תרתי

arrived at? — R. Jose b. Hanina said: [The value of] an area requiring one <i>se'ah</i> of seed [is determined] in proportion to the value of an area requiring sixty se'ahs of seed. R. Jannai said: [The value of] an area requiring one <i>tarkab</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. half a se'ah, amounting thus to three kabs, though originally it meant two kabs. ');">⁶</span>

היכי שיימינן א"ר יוסי בר חנינא סאה בששים סאין ר' ינאי אמר תרקב בששים תרקבים חזקיה אמר קלח בששים קלחים

of seed [is determined] in proportion to the value of an area requiring sixty tarkabs of seed. Hezekiah said: [The value of] each stalk [consumed is determined] in proportion to the value of sixty such stalks.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The principle underlying this difference of opinion is made clear in the Baraitha that follows. ');">⁷</span>

מיתיבי אכלה קב או קביים אין אומרים תשלם דמיהן אלא רואין אותה כאילו היא ערוגה קטנה ומשערים אותה מאי לאו בפני עצמה

An objection was raised [from the following:] If it consumed one <i>kab</i> in two <i>kabs</i> [of grain], it would not be right to ask payment for their full value,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 123. ');">⁸</span>

לא בששים

but the amount consumed would have to be considered as if forming a little bed which would thus be estimated. Now, does this not mean that the bed will be valued by itself?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not in proportion to the value of a bigger area. This refutes the views of all the cited authorities. ');">⁹</span>

ת"ר אין שמין קב מפני שמשביחו ולא בית כור מפני שפוגמו

— No; in [the proportion of one to] sixty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [I.e., either 'se'ahs', 'tarkabs' or 'stalks' as the case may be.] ');">¹⁰</span>

מאי קאמר א"ר פפא ה"ק אין שמין קב בששים קבים מפני שמשביח מזיק ולא כור בששים כורין מפני שפוגם מזיק

Our Rabbis taught: The valuation is made neither of a <i>kab</i> by itself, as this would be an advantage to him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. the discussion infra. ');">¹¹</span>

מתקיף לה רב הונא בר מנוח האי ולא בית כור ולא כור מבעי ליה

nor of an area required for a <i>kor</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., thirty se'ahs; cf. Glos. ');">¹²</span>

אלא אמר רב הונא בר מנוח משמיה דרב אחא בריה דרב איקא הכי קתני אין שמין קב בפני עצמו מפני שמשביח ניזק ולא קב בבית כור מפני שפוגם ניזק אלא בששים

of seed, as this would be a disadvantage to him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. the discussion infra. ');">¹¹</span>

ההוא גברא דקץ קשבא מחבריה אתא לקמיה דריש גלותא א"ל לדידי חזי לי ותלתא תאלתא בקינא הוו קיימי והוו שוו מאה זוזי זיל הב ליה תלתין ותלתא ותילתא אמר גבי ריש גלותא דדאין דינא דפרסאה למה לי אתא לקמיה דר"נ א"ל בששים

What does this mean? — R. Papa said: What is meant is this: Neither is a <i>kab</i> [of grain consumed] valued in conjunction with sixty <i>kabs</i>, as the defendant would thereby have too great an advantage,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the payment would be very small owing to the fact that the deficiency of one kab in an area required for sixty kabs of seed would hardly be noticed, and so would reduce the general price very little. ');">¹³</span>

א"ל רבא אם אמרו בנזקי ממונו יאמרו בנזקי גופו

nor is a <i>kor</i> valued in conjunction with sixty kors, as this would mean too great a disadvantage for the defendant.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the deficiency of one kor, in an area required for sixty times as much, is conspicuous, and reduces the general price too much. The valutation of a se'ah will therefore be made in proportion to sixty se'ahs. ');">¹⁴</span>

אמר ליה אביי לרבא בנזקי גופו מאי דעתיך דתניא המבכיר כרמו של חבירו סמדר רואין אותו כמה היתה יפה קודם לכן וכמה היא יפה לאחר מכאן ואילו בששים לא קתני

R. Huna b. Manoah demurred to this, saying: Why then does it say, 'nor of an area required for a <i>kor</i> of seed'? [According to your interpretation] should it not have been 'nor a kor'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Should be valued in this way. ');">¹⁵</span>

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].