Bava Kamma 117

אכלה סמדר רבי יהושע אומר רואין אותן כאילו הן ענבים עומדות ליבצר וחכ"א רואין כמה היתה יפה וכמה היא יפה רבי שמעון בן יהודה אומר משום רבי שמעון בד"א בזמן שאכלה לולבי גפנים ויחורי תאנים אבל אכלה פגים או בוסר רואין אותן כאילו ענבים עומדות ליבצר

If it consumed grapes while still in the budding stage, R. Joshua says that they should be estimated as if they were grapes ready to be plucked off. But the Sages [here too] say that it will have to be ascertained how much it was worth [previously] and how much it is worth [now]. R. Simeon b. Judah says in the name of R. Simeon:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B. Yohai. ');">¹</span>

קתני מיהת וחכ"א רואין אותן כמה היתה יפה וכמה היא יפה ולא קתני בששים

These rulings apply where it consumed sprouts of vines or shoots of fig-trees, but where it consumed [actual] figs or half-ripe grapes they would be estimated as if they were grapes ready to be plucked off.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keth. 105a. ');">²</span>

אלא מאי אית לך למימר בששים ה"נ בששים

Now, it is definitely taught here, 'The Sages say that it will have to be ascertained how much it was worth [previously] and how much it is worth [now]' and it is not said [explicitly that the valuation will be made] in conjunction with sixty [times as much]. Nevertheless you must say that it is implied that [the valuation is to be made] in conjunction with sixty [times as much]. So also then here, [in the case of Man it is implied that the valuation is to be] in conjunction with Sixty [times as much].

אמר אביי ר' יוסי הגלילי ור' ישמעאל אמרו דבר אחד

Abaye said: R. Jose the Galilean and R. Ishmael expressed the same view [in this matter]. R. Jose the Galilean as stated by us [above],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it will have to be considered in the light of the future value of that which was left in the field. ');">³</span>

ר' יוסי הגלילי הא דאמרן

and R. Ishmael as taught [elsewhere]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 6b. ');">⁴</span>

רבי ישמעאל דתניא (שמות כב, ד) מיטב שדהו ומיטב כרמו ישלם מיטב שדהו של ניזק ומיטב כרמו של ניזק דברי ר' ישמעאל ר"ע אומר לא בא הכתוב אלא לגבות לניזקין מן העידית וק"ו להקדש

'Of the best of his own field and of the best of his own vineyard shall he make restitution;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 4. ');">⁵</span>

ולא תימא כרב אידי בר אבין דאמר רב אידי בר אבין כגון שאכלה ערוגה בין הערוגות ולא ידעינן אי כחושה הואי אי שמינה הואי דאמר קום שלים שמינה במיטב דאיכא השתא דהכי לא אמרינן

this means the best of the field of the plaintiff and the best of the vineyard of the plaintiff. This is the view of R. Ishmael. R. Akiba, however, says: Scripture only intended to lay down that damages should be collected out of the best and this applies even more to sacred property. Nor can you say that he [R. Ishmael] meant this in the sense of R. Idi b. Abin, who said [that it deals with a case where] e.g., the cattle consumed one bed out of several beds and we could not ascertain whether its produce was meagre or fertile, so that R. Ishmael would [thus be made to] order the defendant to go and pay for a fertile bed in accordance with the value of the best bed at the time of the damage. This could not be maintained by us, for the reason that the onus probandi falls upon the claimant. R. Ishmael<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [In the case where the quality of the bed consumed by the cattle was not in doubt.] ');">⁶</span>

מאי טעמא המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה אלא במיטב דלקמיה ומאי ניהו כי היאך דסליק

must therefore have meant the best of anticipation, i.e., as it would have matured [at the harvest time].

אמר מר ר"ש בן יהודה אומר משום ר"ש במה דברים אמורים שאכלה לולבי גפנים ויחורי תאנים הא סמדר רואין אותן כאילו ענבים עומדות ליבצר אימא סיפא אכלה פגים או בוסר הוא דרואין אותן כאילו ענבים עומדות ליבצר הא סמדר רואין אותן כמה היא יפה וכמה היתה יפה

The Master stated: 'R. Simeon b. Judah says in the name of R. Simeon: These rulings apply only where it consumed sprouts of vines or shoots of fig-trees,' [thus implying that] where it consumed grapes in the budding stage they would be estimated as if they were grapes ready to be plucked off. Read [now] the concluding clause: 'Where it consumed [actual] figs or half-ripe grapes they would be estimated as if they were grapes ready to be plucked off', [implying to the contrary that] where it consumed grapes in the budding stage it would have to be ascertained how much it was worth [previously] and how much it is worth [now]. [Is this not a contradiction?] — Rabina said: Embody [the new case in the text] and teach thus: 'These rulings apply only where it consumed sprouts of vines or shoots of fig-trees, for where it consumed grapes in the budding stage, or [actual] figs or half-ripe grapes they would be estimated as if they were grapes ready to be plucked off.' But if so would R. Simeon b. Judah's view not be exactly the same as that already stated by R. Joshua? — There is a practical difference between them as to [the deduction to be made for] the depreciation of the vines [themselves, through exhaustion, if the grapes had remained there until fully ripe],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [I.e., one view would maintain that this deduction has to be made, while the other would not maintain this.] ');">⁷</span>

אמר רבינא כרוך ותני בד"א בזמן שאכלה לולבי גפנים ויחורי תאנים אבל אכלה סמדר פגין או בוסר רואין אותן כאילו ענבים עומדות ליבצר

though the views cannot be identified.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [It cannot be stated precisely which authority is of the one and which of the other view.] ');">⁸</span>

אי הכי ר"ש בן יהודה היינו רבי יהושע

Abaye, however, said: They most assuredly could be identified. For who could be the Tanna who takes into consideration the depreciation of the vine, if not R. Simeon b. Judah? For it was taught: R. Simeon b. Judah says in the name of R. Simeon b. Menasya:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keth, 39a. ');">⁹</span>

איכא בינייהו כחש גופנא ולא מסיימי

[Even] in the case of Rape no compensation is made for Pain, as the female would [in any case] have subsequently to undergo the same pain through her husband.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Proving that a deduction from the amount of the damages is made on a similar accord. ');">¹⁰</span>

אביי אמר מסיימי ומסיימי מאן תנא דחייש לכחש גופנא ר"ש בן יהודה היא דתניא ר"ש בן יהודה אומר משום ר"ש בן מנסיא אונס אינו משלם את הצער מפני שסופה להצטער תחת בעלה אמרו לו אינו דומה נבעלת ברצון לנבעלת באונס

The Rabbis however said to him: A woman having intercourse by her free will is not to be compared to one having intercourse by constraint.

אמר אביי הני תנאי ור"ש בן יהודה אמרו דבר אחד רבי שמעון בן יהודה הא דאמרן הני תנאי מאי היא

Abaye further said: The following Tannaim and R. Simeon b. Judah expressed on this point the same view?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a deduction should be made on this accord. ');">¹¹</span>

דתניא רבי יוסי אומר נכי חיה בן עזאי אומר נכי מזונות

R. Simeon b. Judah's view as stated by us [above]. Who are the other Tannaim [referred to]? — As taught: R. Jose says: Deduct the fees of the midwife,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the payment for injuring a pregnant woman resulting in a miscarriage; cf. Ex. XXI, 22 and supra 49a. ');">¹²</span>

מ"ד נכי חיה כ"ש נכי מזונות ומ"ד נכי מזונות אבל נכי חיה לא דאמר ליה אתתא דידי פקיחא היא ולא מבעיא חיה

but Ben 'Azzai says: Deduct food.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. the special diet which would have been necessary during the confinement period. ');">¹³</span>

רב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע עבוד עובדא כוותיה דר"נ בששים

The one who says, 'deduct the fees for the midwife' would certainly deduct food,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the special diet would have been an inevitable expense. ');">¹⁴</span>

לישנא אחרינא רב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע שמו דקלא אגב קטינא דארעא

but the one who says, 'deduct food', would not deduct the fees for the midwife, as the plaintiff might say, 'My wife is a lively person and does not need a midwife.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He would therefore have spared this expense. ');">¹⁵</span>

והלכתא כוותיה דרב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע בדקלא דארמאה והלכתא כוותיה דריש גלותא בדקלא פרסאה

R. Papa and R. Huna the son of R. Joshua in an actual case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where a human being did damage with his body. ');">¹⁶</span>

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