## Bava Kamma Daf 58b

###### Bava Kamma 58b:1
[Bava Kamma 58b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/58b:1)

וּלְאִסְתַּמּוֹרֵי בְּגַוַּהּ? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and taken care of it,** and he bears responsibility for failing to do so. The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Bava Kamma 58b:2
[Bava Kamma 58b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/58b:2)

כֵּיצַד מְשַׁלֶּמֶת מַה שֶּׁהִזִּיקָה וְכוּ׳. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **How does** the court appraise the value of the damage when the owner **pays** for **what it damaged?** The court appraises a large piece of land with an area required for sowing one se’a of seed [*beit se’a*] in that field, including the garden bed in which the damage took place, it appraises how much it was worth before the animal damaged it and how much is it worth now, and the owner must pay the difference. The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived?


###### Bava Kamma 58b:3
[Bava Kamma 58b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/58b:3)

אָמַר רַב מַתְנָה, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וּבִעֵר בִּשְׂדֵה אַחֵר״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁשָּׁמִין עַל גַּב שָׂדֶה אַחֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Mattana says: As the verse states: “And it feed in another field [*uvi’er bisde aḥer*]”** (Exodus 22:4). This **teaches that** the court **appraises** the damage **relative to another field,** i.e., relative to the damaged field as a whole and not an appraisal of only the specific garden bed that was damaged.


###### Bava Kamma 58b:4
[Bava Kamma 58b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/58b:4)

הַאי ״וּבִעֵר בִּשְׂדֵה אַחֵר״ מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְאַפּוֹקֵי רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: But **this** phrase: **“*Uvi’er bisde aḥer*,”** can be understood as meaning: “And it feed in another’s field,” and accordingly, **is necessary** to teach that the owner is not liable unless it was a field with an owner, **to exclude** damage caused by an animal in **the public domain,** for which the owner is not liable.


###### Bava Kamma 58b:5
[Bava Kamma 58b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/58b:5)

אִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״וּבִעֵר בִּשְׂדֵה חֲבֵירוֹ״, אִי נָמֵי ״שְׂדֵה אַחֵר״! מַאי ״בִּשְׂדֵה אַחֵר״? שֶׁשָּׁמִין עַל גַּב שָׂדֶה אַחֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If so,** if this was the sole intention of the verse, **let the Merciful One write** in the Torah: **And it feed in a field belonging to another [*uvi’er bisde ḥaveiro*], or alternatively,** let it write: And it consume **another field [*sedeh aḥer*].” What** is conveyed by the particular expression: **“In another field [*bisde aḥer*]”?** It is to teach that the court **appraises** the damage **relative to another field.**


###### Bava Kamma 58b:6
[Bava Kamma 58b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/58b:6)

וְאֵימָא כּוּלֵּיהּ לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא; לְאַפּוֹקֵי רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** why not **say** that this verse **comes entirely for this** purpose, i.e., to teach that the court appraises the damage relative to another field? And in that case, **from where do we** derive the **exclusion** of liability for damage by Eating in **the public domain?**


###### Bava Kamma 58b:7
[Bava Kamma 58b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/58b:7)

אִם כֵּן, לִכְתְּבֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי תַשְׁלוּמִין – ״מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ וּמֵיטַב כַּרְמוֹ יְשַׁלֵּם בִּשְׂדֵה אַחֵר״! לְמָה לִי דְּכַתְבֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי ״וּבִעֵר״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If** it is **so** that the verse was referring solely to the method of appraising the damage, **the Merciful One should have written this** in the Torah **in the context of payment,** as follows: **His best-quality field and the best quality of his vineyard he shall pay in another field** (see Exodus 22:4), thereby adding the term: In another field, and, by extension, the directive concerning how the damage is appraised, to the verse discussing payment. **Why do I** need **the Merciful One to write it in** the context of the act of damaging, in the verse: **“And it feed** in another field”? **Conclude two** conclusions **from it:** The verse is referring to both the place where the damage occurred and the method by which the damage is appraised.


###### Bava Kamma 58b:8
[Bava Kamma 58b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/58b:8)

הֵיכִי שָׁיְימִינַן? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: סְאָה בְּשִׁשִּׁים סְאִין. רַבִּי יַנַּאי אָמַר: תַּרְקַב בְּשִׁשִּׁים תַּרְקַבִּים. חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר: קֶלַח בְּשִׁשִּׁים קְלָחִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara asks: **How do we,** the court, **appraise** the value of the damage? **Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says:** The court appraises the value of an area required for sowing one ***se’a*** of seed [*beit se’a*] **relative to** an area required for sowing **sixty *se’a*** of seed, and according to this calculation determines the value of the damage. **Rabbi Yannai says:** The court appraises each ***tarkav*,** equivalent to half a *beit se’a*, **relative to** an area of **sixty *tarkav*. Ḥizkiyya says:** The court appraises the value of each **stalk** eaten **relative to sixty stalks.**


###### Bava Kamma 58b:9
[Bava Kamma 58b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/58b:9)

מֵיתִיבִי: אָכְלָה קַב אוֹ קַבַּיִים – אֵין אוֹמְרִים תְּשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵיהֶן, אֶלָּא רוֹאִין אוֹתָהּ כְּאִילּוּ הִיא עֲרוּגָה קְטַנָּה, וּמְשַׁעֲרִים אוֹתָהּ. מַאי, לָאו בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita*: If an animal **ate** one ***kav* or two *kav*,** the court **does not say that** the owner **pays** compensation according to **their value,** i.e., the value of the actual damage; **rather,** they **view it as if it were a small garden bed and evaluate it** accordingly. **What, is it not** that this means that the court evaluates that garden bed according to what it would cost if sold **by itself,** which contradicts all the previous explanations?


###### Bava Kamma 58b:10
[Bava Kamma 58b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/58b:10)

לָא, בְּשִׁשִּׁים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this interpretation: **No,** it means that the court appraises the value **in** relation to an area **sixty** times greater.


###### Bava Kamma 58b:11
[Bava Kamma 58b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/58b:11)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין שָׁמִין קַב – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּשְׁבִּיחוֹ, וְלֹא בֵּית כּוֹר – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁפּוֹגְמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught:** When appraising the damage, the court **does not appraise** it based on an area of a *beit **kav*****, because** doing so **enhances his** position, **and** they also do **not** appraise it relative to an area of **a *beit kor*,** equivalent to the area in which one can plant thirty *se’a* of seed, **because this weakens his** position.


###### Bava Kamma 58b:12
[Bava Kamma 58b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/58b:12)

מַאי קָאָמַר? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵין שָׁמִין קַב בְּשִׁשִּׁים קַבִּים – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּשְׁבִּיחַ מַזִּיק, וְלֹא כּוֹר בְּשִׁשִּׁים כּוֹרִין – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁפּוֹגֵם מַזִּיק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** this *baraita* **saying? Rav Pappa said: This** is what the *baraita* is **saying:** The court **does not appraise** the value of one ***kav* relative to** an area of **sixty *kav*,** which, being too large for an individual but too small for a trader, is always sold in the market at a lower price, **because that** would **enhance** the position of **the one liable for damage.** Conversely, the court does **not** appraise the value of **a *kor* relative to** an area of **sixty *kor*,** an area so large that it is purchased only by a person with a specific need and therefore for a high price, **because that** would **weaken** the position of **the one liable for damage.**


###### Bava Kamma 58b:13
[Bava Kamma 58b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/58b:13)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב הוּנָא בַּר מָנוֹחַ: הַאי ״וְלֹא בֵּית כּוֹר״?! ״וְלֹא כּוֹר״ מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna bar Manoaḥ objects to this:** According to this interpretation, **this** term employed by the *baraita*: **And** they also **do not** appraise it relative to **an area** of **a *beit kor*,** is imprecise. According to the explanation of Rav Pappa, the *baraita* **should have said: And** they also **do not** appraise it relative to **a *kor*,** to parallel the term in the previous clause: A *kav*.


###### Bava Kamma 58b:14
[Bava Kamma 58b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/58b:14)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר מָנוֹחַ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא, הָכִי קָתָנֵי: אֵין שָׁמִין קַב בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּשְׁבִּיחַ נִיזָּק, וְלֹא קַב בְּבֵית כּוֹר – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁפּוֹגֵם נִיזָּק; אֶלָּא בְּשִׁשִּׁים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Huna bar Manoaḥ said in the name of Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika,** that **this** is what the *baraita* **is teaching:** The court **does not appraise a *kav* by itself, because that** would **enhance** the position of **the injured** party, **nor** does the court appraise **a *kav*** as one part of **a *beit kor*, because that** would **weaken** the position of **the injured** party, since damage inside such a large area is insignificant. **Rather,** the court appraises the damage **in** relation to an area **sixty** times greater than the area that was damaged.


###### Bava Kamma 58b:15
[Bava Kamma 58b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/58b:15)

הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּקַץ קַשְׁבָּא מֵחַבְרֵיהּ. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְדִידִי חֲזֵי לִי, וּתְלָתָא תָּאלָתָא בְּקִינָּא הֲווֹ קָיְימִי, וַהֲווֹ שָׁווּ מְאָה זוּזֵי. זִיל הַב לֵיהּ תְּלָתִין וּתְלָתָא וְתִילְתָּא. אָמַר: גַּבֵּי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא דְּדָאֵין דִּינָא דְּפָרְסָאָה, לְמָה לִי? אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּשִׁשִּׁים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara relates: There was **a certain man who cut down a date palm [*kashba*]** belonging **to another.** The latter **came** with the perpetrator for arbitration **before the Exilarch.** The Exilarch **said to** the perpetrator: **I personally saw** that place where the date palm was planted, and it actually contained **three date palms [*talata*] standing** together **in a cluster,** growing out of a single root, **and they were worth** altogether **one hundred dinars.** Consequently, since you, the perpetrator, cut down one of the three, **go** and **give him thirty-three and one-third** dinars, one third of the total value. The perpetrator rejected this ruling and **said: Why do I** need to be judged by **the Exilarch, who rules according to Persian law? He came before Rav Naḥman** for judgment in the same case, who **said to him:** The court appraises the damage **in** relation to an area **sixty** times greater than the damage caused. This amount is much less than thirty-three and one-third dinars.


###### Bava Kamma 58b:16
[Bava Kamma 58b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/58b:16)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אִם אָמְרוּ בְּנִזְקֵי מָמוֹנוֹ, יֹאמְרוּ בְּנִזְקֵי גוּפוֹ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to** Rav Naḥman: **If** the Sages **said** that the court appraises **damage** caused **by one’s property,** such as his animal, relative to an area sixty times greater, **would** they also **say** that the court appraises damage relative to an area sixty times greater even **for** direct **damage** caused by **one’s body?**


###### Bava Kamma 58b:17
[Bava Kamma 58b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/58b:17)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרָבָא: בְּנִזְקֵי גוּפוֹ מַאי דַּעְתָּיךְ – דְּתַנְיָא: הַמַּבְכִּיר כַּרְמוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ סְמָדַר – רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כַּמָּה הָיָה יָפֶה קוֹדֶם לָכֵן, וְכַמָּה הוּא יָפֶה לְאַחַר מִכָּאן; וְאִילּוּ בְּשִׁשִּׁים לָא קָתָנֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to Rava: With regard to damage** caused by **one’s body, what is your opinion?** Are you basing your opinion on the following, **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: If one **destroys the vineyard of another** while the grapes are **budding [*semadar*],** the court **views how much** the vineyard **was worth before** he destroyed it, **and how much it is worth afterward.** Abaye states the inference: **Whereas,** the method of appraising one part in **sixty is not taught.** Is the basis of your ruling the fact that in this *baraita* that discusses damage caused directly by a person, the method of appraising one part in sixty is not mentioned?


###### Bava Kamma 58b:18
[Bava Kamma 58b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/58b:18)

אַטּוּ גַּבֵּי בְהֶמְתּוֹ נָמֵי מִי לָא תַּנְיָא כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא?! דְּתַנְיָא: קָטְמָה נְטִיעָה – רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, גּוֹזְרֵי גְזֵירוֹת שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם אוֹמְרִים: נְטִיעָה בַּת שְׁנָתָהּ – שְׁתֵּי כֶּסֶף, בַּת שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים – אַרְבָּעָה כֶּסֶף. אָכְלָה חֲזִיז – רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: נִידּוֹן בַּמְשׁוּיָּיר שֶׁבּוֹ, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: רוֹאִין אוֹתָהּ כַּמָּה הָיְתָה יָפָה, וְכַמָּה הִיא יָפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye continued: **Is that to say** that **with regard to** damage caused by **an animal it is not taught** in a mishna or *baraita* without mentioning the method of appraising one part in sixty **like this case?** But this is not so, **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: If an animal **broke down a sapling** that had not yet borne fruit, **Rabbi Yosei says: Those who issue decrees in Jerusalem say** that the damages are determined based on a fixed formula: If the **sapling** was **in its first year,** the owner of the animal pays **two** pieces of **silver;** if the sapling was **two years old,** he pays **four** pieces of **silver.** If the animal **ate unripe blades of grain** used for pasture, **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: It is judged according to what remains of it,** i.e., the court waits until the rest of the field ripens and then appraises the value of what was previously eaten. **And the Rabbis say:** The court **views how much** the field **was worth** before he destroyed it, **and how much it is worth** now.