Bava Kamma 13

ובעל חוב בבינונית

who can collect nothing better than the medium quality.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Git. V, 1. ');">¹</span>

וכי תימא סבר ר"ע כל בעל חוב נמי בעידית איכא למיפרך מה לבעל חוב שכן יפה כחו בנזקין תאמר בהקדש שהורע כחו בנזקין

If, however, you hold that R. Akiba authorises the payment of all loans out of the best, [the treasurer of the Temple could still hardly avail himself of this privilege as] the analogy between these two kinds of liability could be upset as follows: A private creditor is at an advantage in that for damages he will surely be paid out of the best, but is not the Temple Treasury at a very great disadvantage in this respect?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of the absolute immunity, as stated, for damage done to Temple property. ');">²</span>

לעולם דנגח תורא דידן לתורא דהקדש ודקא קשיא לך שור רעהו אמר רחמנא ולא שור של הקדש ר"ע סבר לה כר"ש בן מנסיא

— It may still be maintained that it applies to the case where a private ox gored a consecrated ox, and in answer to the difficulty raised by you — that the Divine Law definitely says The ox of one's neighbour, thus exempting for damage done to consecrated property — it may be suggested that R. Akiba shares the view of R. Simeon b. Menasya as taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra p. 212. ');">³</span>

דתניא ר"ש בן מנסיא אומר שור של הקדש שנגח שור של הדיוט פטור שור של הדיוט שנגח שור של הקדש בין תם בין מועד משלם נזק שלם

R. Simeon b. Menasya says: In the case of a consecrated ox goring a private one, there is total exemption; but for a private ox, whether <i>Tam</i> or <i>Mu'ad</i>, goring a consecrated ox, full damages must be paid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Akiba thus maintains that the Temple Treasury will, for any damage sustained, be reimbursed out of the best of the defendant's estate. ');">⁴</span>

אי הכי ר' ישמעאל ור"ע ממאי דבעידית דניזק וזיבורית דמזיק פליגי דלמא דכ"ע בדניזק שיימינן והכא בפלוגתא דר"ש בן מנסיא ורבנן קמפלגי

If this is R. Akiba's contention, whence could it be proved that the point at issue between R. Ishmael and R. Akiba is as to the best of the plaintiff's equalling the worst of the defendant's? Why not say that on this point they are both of opinion that the qualities are estimated in relation to the plaintiff's possessions,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And where the plaintiff's best equals the defendant's worst, the latter will perhaps suffice according to all opinions. ');">⁵</span>

ר"ע סבר כר"ש בן מנסיא ור' ישמעאל סבר כרבנן

whereas the disagreement between them is on the point at issue between R. Simeon b. Menasya and the Rabbis [i.e., the majority against him], R. Akiba holding the view of R. Simeon b. Menasya, and R. Ishmael that of the Rabbis? — If so, what would be the purport of the first clause of R. Akiba, 'Scripture only intended that damages be collected out of the best'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which indicates that the interpretation of the Scriptural verse (Ex. XXII, 4) is the point at issue. ');">⁶</span>

א"כ מאי לא בא הכתוב

Again, would not then even the last clause 'And this even more so applies to sacred property' be rather illogically phrased?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As according to the view requiring full payment in all cases, the quality of the payment for damage done to sacred property may he higher than that paid for damage done to ordinary property, and in fact nothing less than the very best of the defendant's estate would suffice. ');">⁷</span>

ועוד מאי ק"ו להקדש

Furthermore, R. Ashi said: It was explicitly taught: Of the best of his field and of the best of his vineyard shall he make restitution<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 4. ');">⁸</span>

ועוד הא אמר רב אשי תניא בהדיא (שמות כב, ד) מיטב שדהו ומיטב כרמו ישלם מיטב שדהו של ניזק ומיטב כרמו של ניזק דברי רבי ישמעאל ר"ע אומר מיטב שדהו של מזיק ומיטב כרמו של מזיק:

refers to the field of the plaintiff and to the vineyard of the plaintiff: this is the view of R. Ishmael. R. Akiba [on the other hand] says: The best of the defendant's field and the best of the defendant's vineyard.

רמי ליה אביי לרבא כתיב מיטב שדהו ומיטב כרמו ישלם מיטב אין מידי אחרינא לא

Abaye pointed out to Raba the following contradiction: Scripture records, <i>Out of the best of his field and out of the best of his vineyard shall he make restitution</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 4. ');">⁸</span>

והתניא (שמות כא, לד) ישיב לרבות שוה כסף ואפילו סובין

[thus indicating that payment must be made] only out of the best and not out of anything else; whereas it is taught: He should return,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 34. ');">⁹</span>

לא קשיא כאן מדעתו כאן בעל כרחו

includes payment in kind,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Otherwise the Scriptural text would be superfluous, as payment in specie is evident in an earlier clause. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר עולא בריה דרב עילאי דיקא נמי דכתיב ישלם בעל כרחו

even with bran?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 9a. ');">¹¹</span>

א"ל אביי מי כתיב ישולם ישלם כתיב מדעתו משמע

— There is no contradiction: the latter applies when the payment is made willingly, while the former refers to payments enforced [by law]. 'Ulla the son of R. Elai, thereupon said: This distinction is evident even from the Scriptural term, He shall make restitution,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 4. ');">⁸</span>

אלא אמר אביי כדמר דתניא הרי שהיו לו בתים שדות וכרמים ואינו מוצא למוכרן מאכילין אותו מעשר עני עד מחצה

meaning, even against his will. Abaye, on the other hand, said to him: Is it written yeshullam<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] ');">¹²</span>

והוי בה מר היכי דמי אי הוזל ארעתא דכ"ע ודידיה נמי זל בהדייהו אפילו טובא נמי ליספי ליה דהא זול דכ"ע נמי

['Restitution shall be made']? What is written is yeshallem<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] ');">¹³</span>

אלא דאוקיר ארעתא דכולי עלמא ודידיה איידי דעייל ונפיק אזוזי זל ארעיה

['He shall make restitution'], which could mean of his own free will! — But said Abaye: [The contradiction can be solved] as the Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbah (Rashi). ');">¹⁴</span> [did] in the case taught: An owner of houses, fields and vineyards<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The value of which amounted to 200 zuz. ');">¹⁵</span> who cannot find a purchaser [is considered needy and] may be given the tithe for the poor<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Deut. XIV, 28-29; this tithe is distributed among those who possess less than two hundred zuz; Pe'ah VIII, 8. ');">¹⁶</span> up to half the value of his estate.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., 100 zuz to enable him to sell his property for half its value which, it is assumed, he can at any time realise. ');">¹⁷</span> Now the Master discussed the circumstances under which this permission could apply: If property in general, and his included, dropped in value, why not grant him even the value of more [than the half of his estate's value], since the depreciation is general? If, on the other hand, property in general appreciated, but his, on account of his going about looking here and there for ready money, fell in price,