Bava Kamma 28

שלשה כללות בארבע מקומות

The rules are three in number, but the places to which they apply may be divided into four.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [ I.e.. partnership premises may he subdivided into two: (a) where both have the right to keep fruit, as well as cattle; (b) where the right to keep fruit is exclusively the plaintiff's.] ');">¹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> שום כסף שוה כסף בפני ב"ד ועל פי עדים בני חורין בני ברית והנשים בכלל הנזק והניזק והמזיק בתשלומין

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. THE VALUATION [IS MADE] IN MONEY [BUT MAY BE PAID] BY MONEY'S WORTH, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE COURT AND ON THE EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES WHO ARE FREE MEN AND PERSONS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE LAW. WOMEN ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF TORTS. [BOTH] THE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT ARE INVOLVED IN THE PAYMENT.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאי שום כסף

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. What is the meaning of THE VALUATION IN MONEY? Rab Judah said: This valuation must be made only in specie. We thus learn here that which has been taught by our Rabbis elsewhere:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. B.K., I. ');">²</span>

אמר רב יהודה שום זה לא יהא אלא בכסף

In the case of a cow damaging a garment while the garment also damaged the cow, it should not be said that the damage done by the cow is to be set off against the damage done to the garment and the damage done to the garment against the damage done to the cow, the respective damages have to be estimated at a money value.

תנינא להא דתנו רבנן פרה שהזיקה טלית וטלית שהזיקה פרה אין אומרים תצא פרה בטלית וטלית בפרה אלא שמין אותה בדמים

BY MONEY'S WORTH. [This is explained by what] our Rabbis taught [elsewhere]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. B.K., I. ');">²</span>

שוה כסף

'MONEY'S WORTH' implies that the Court will not have recourse for distraint save to immovable property. Nevertheless if the plaintiff himself seized some chattels beforehand, the Court will collect payment for him out of them.

דתנו רבנן שוה כסף מלמד שאין בית דין נזקקין אלא לנכסים שיש להן אחריות אבל אם קדם ניזק ותפס מטלטלין בית דין גובין לו מהן

The Master stated: "'MONEY'S WORTH" implies that the Court will not have recourse for distraint save to immovable property. How is this implied? Rabbah b. 'Ulla said: The article of distress has to be worth all that is paid for it [in money].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Money's worth' would thus mean 'property which could not be said to be worth less than the price paid for it,' and is thus never subject to the law of deception. This holds good with immovable property; cf. B.M. 56a. ');">³</span>

אמר מר שוה כסף מלמד שאין בית דין נזקקין אלא לנכסים שיש להן אחריות מאי משמע

What does this mean? An article which is not subject to the law of deception?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. B.M. ibid. ');">⁴</span>

אמר רבה בר עולא דבר השוה כל כסף מאי ניהו דבר שאין לו אונאה עבדים ושטרות נמי אין להן אונאה

Are not slaves and deeds also not subject to the law of deception?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. B.M. ibid. ');">⁴</span>

אלא אמר רבה בר עולא דבר הנקנה בכסף עבדים ושטרות נמי נקנין בכסף

— Rabbah b. 'Ulla therefore said: An article, title to which is acquired by means of money.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kid. 26a. ');">⁵</span>

אלא אמר רב אשי שוה כסף ולא כסף והני כולהו כסף נינהו

Are not slaves<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Kid. 23b. ');">⁶</span>

רמי ליה רב יהודה בר חיננא לרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע תנא שוה כסף מלמד שאין בית דין נזקקין אלא לנכסים שיש להן אחריות והתניא (שמות כא, לד) ישיב לרבות שוה כסף ואפילו סובין

and deeds<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Tosaf. deletes 'deeds' as these are not acquired by money but by Mesirah (v. Glos.). cf. B.B. 76a.] ');">⁷</span>

הכא במאי עסקינן ביתמי

similarly acquired by means of money.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Kid. 23b. ');">⁶</span>

אי ביתמי אימא סיפא אם קדם ניזק ותפס מטלטלין בית דין גובין לו מהן אי ביתמי אמאי בית דין גובין לו מהן

R. Ashi therefore said: 'Money's worth' implies that which has money's worth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., immovable property. ');">⁸</span>

כדאמר רבא אמר רב נחמן שתפס מחיים הכא נמי שתפס מחיים:

whereas chattels are considered actual money.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As these could easily be converted into money, v. supra p. 26. ');">⁹</span>

בפני בית דין:

Rab Judah b. Hinena pointed out the following contradiction to R. Huna the son of R. Joshua: It has been taught: 'MONEY'S FORTH implies that the Court will not have recourse for distraint save to immovable property; behold, was it not taught: He shall return<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 34. ');">¹⁰</span>

פרט למוכר נכסיו ואחר כך הולך לבית דין

includes 'money's worth', even bran?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 24. ');">¹¹</span>

שמע מינה לוה ומכר נכסיו ואחר כך בא לבית דין אין בית דין גובין לו מהן

— [In the former Baraitha] we are dealing with a case of heirs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who have to pay only out of the realty of the estate but not out of the personalty; cf. supra p. 31. ');">¹²</span>

אלא פרט לב"ד הדיוטות:

If we are dealing with heirs read the concluding clause: 'If the plaintiff himself seized some chattels beforehand, the Court will collect payment for him out of them.' Now, if we are dealing with heirs, how may the Court collect payment for him out of them? — As already elsewhere<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keth. 84b. ');">¹³</span>

על פי עדים:

stated by Raba on behalf of R. Nahman, that the plaintiff seized [the chattels] while the original defendant was still alive, so here too, the seizure took place while the defendant was still alive.

פרט למודה בקנס ואחר כך באו עדים שהוא פטור

IN THE PRESENCE OF THE COURT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is taken to mean 'the payment in kind is made out of the possessions which are in the presence of the Court', i.e., not disposed of. ');">¹⁴</span>

הניחא למאן דאמר מודה בקנס ואחר כך באו עדים פטור אלא למאן דאמר מודה בקנס ואחר כך באו עדים חייב מאי איכא למימר

[apparently] exempts a case where the defendant sold his possessions before having been summoned to Court. May it hence be derived that in the case of one who borrowed money and sold his possessions before having been summoned to Court, the Court does not collect the debt out of the estate which has been disposed of?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas the law is definitely otherwise as in B.B. X, 8. ');">¹⁵</span>

סיפא אצטריך ליה

— The text therefore excepts a Court of laymen.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' IN THE PRESENCE OF THE COURT does not refer to payment in kind but to the valuation which has to be made by qualified judges, v. infra 84b. ');">¹⁶</span> ON THE EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES, thus excepting a confession of [an act punishable by] a fine for which subsequently there appeared witnesses, in which case there is exemption. That would accord with the view that in the case of a confession of [an act punishable by] a fine, for which subsequently there appeared witnesses, there is exemption;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra p. 429. ');">¹⁷</span> but according to the opposite view that in the case of a confession of [an act punishable by] a fine for which subsequently appeared witnesses, there is liability,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra p. 429. ');">¹⁷</span> what may be said [to be the import of the text]? — The important point comes in the concluding clause: