## Bava Kamma Daf 59a

###### Bava Kamma 59a:1
[Bava Kamma 59a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/59a:1)

אָכְלָה סְמָדַר – רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: רוֹאִין אוֹתָן כְּאִילּוּ הֵן עֲנָבִים עוֹמְדוֹת לִיבָּצֵר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: רוֹאִין כַּמָּה הָיְתָה יָפָה וְכַמָּה הִיא יָפָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בִּזְמַן שֶׁאָכְלָה לוּלְבֵי גְפָנִים וְיִחוּרֵי תְאֵנִים, אֲבָל אָכְלָה פַּגִּים אוֹ בוֹסֶר – רוֹאִין אוֹתָן כְּאִילּוּ עֲנָבִים עוֹמְדוֹת לִיבָּצֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the animal **ate** the grapes while they were in the **budding** stage, **Rabbi Yehoshua says:** The court **views** the grapes that were damaged **as if they were grapes about to be picked,** and appraise the damage based on this. **And the Rabbis say:** The court **views how much** the vineyard **was worth** before the animal ate the grapes, **and how much it is worth** now. **Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: In what** case **is this statement,** that the court appraises the vineyard or group of trees that were damaged, **said?** It is **when** the animal **ate young branches [*lulevei gefanim*] of vines or shoots of fig** trees, **but** where **it ate unripe figs or unripe grapes,** the court **views them** and appraises them **as if** they were **grapes ready to be picked.**


###### Bava Kamma 59a:2
[Bava Kamma 59a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/59a:2)

קָתָנֵי מִיהַת, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: רוֹאִין אוֹתָן כַּמָּה הָיְתָה יָפָה, וְכַמָּה הִיא יָפָה – וְלָא קָתָנֵי בְּשִׁשִּׁים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye continues: **In any event, it teaches** that **the Rabbis say:** The court **views how much** the vineyard **was worth** before the animal ate the produce **and how much it is worth** now, **and** it **does not teach** that the court appraises the damage relative to an area **sixty** times greater.


###### Bava Kamma 59a:3
[Bava Kamma 59a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/59a:3)

אֶלָּא מַאי אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר – בְּשִׁשִּׁים; הָכָא נָמֵי בְּשִׁשִּׁים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, what have you to say?** You must say that the wording employed by the *baraita* is to be understood to mean that the court appraises the damage **relative to** an area **sixty** times greater, so **here too,** in the *baraita* dealing with one who himself causes damage, the wording is to be understood to mean that the damage is valued **relative to** an area **sixty** times greater.


###### Bava Kamma 59a:4
[Bava Kamma 59a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/59a:4)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Yishmael** both **said the same thing.** They are of the same opinion that the appraisal for damages is based on the value of the produce remaining in the field once it ripens.


###### Bava Kamma 59a:5
[Bava Kamma 59a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/59a:5)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי – הָא דַּאֲמַרַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The opinion of **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili** is **this that we stated** above in the *baraita*, i.e., that the damages paid for an animal eating unripe grain are assessed according to what remains of the grain.


###### Bava Kamma 59a:6
[Bava Kamma 59a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/59a:6)

רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל – דְּתַנְיָא: ״מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ וּמֵיטַב כַּרְמוֹ יְשַׁלֵּם״ – מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ שֶׁל נִיזָּק, וּמֵיטַב כַּרְמוֹ שֶׁל נִיזָּק; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: לֹא בָּא הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא לִגְבּוֹת לַנִּיזָּקִין מִן הָעִידִּית, וְקַל וָחוֹמֶר לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael** is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: **“The best of his field and the best of his vineyard he shall pay”** (Exodus 22:4), which means he must pay according to the **best**-quality **field of the injured** party **or the best**-quality **vineyard of the injured** party. **This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: The verse comes only** to allow **injured** parties **to collect** compensation **from** the **superior-quality** land of the one liable to pay for the damage, **and** by an ***a fortiori*** inference it is derived that this applies **to consecrated** property. Compensation for damaging consecrated property is paid from one’s best-quality assets.


###### Bava Kamma 59a:7
[Bava Kamma 59a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/59a:7)

וְלָא תֵּימָא כְּרַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין – דְּאָמַר רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין: כְּגוֹן שֶׁאָכְלָה עֲרוּגָה בֵּין הָעֲרוּגוֹת, וְלָא יָדְעִינַן אִי כְּחוּשָׁה הֲוַאי אִי שְׁמֵינָה הֲוַאי, דְּאָמַר: קוּם שַׁלֵּים שְׁמֵינָה בְּמֵיטַב דְּאִיכָּא הַשְׁתָּא; דְּהָכִי לָא אָמְרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And do not say** that Rabbi Yishmael’s statement should be interpreted **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Idi bar Avin, as Rav Idi bar Avin says:** Here it concerns a case **where** the animal **ate** the produce of **one garden bed from among** several **garden beds, but we do not know whether** the garden bed it ate from **was lean or choice. Therefore,** the verse **says** to the owner of the animal: **Arise** and **pay choice** land, equivalent **to the best**-quality land **that there is now** remaining, and the court does not assume that the animal ate produce from the lesser-quality garden bed, **as we do not say this.**


###### Bava Kamma 59a:8
[Bava Kamma 59a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/59a:8)

מַאי טַעְמָא? הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. אֶלָּא בְּמֵיטַב דִּלְקַמֵּיהּ, וּמַאי נִיהוּ – כִּי הַיְאךְ דְּסָלֵיק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is the reason** that Rabbi Yishmael does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rav Idi bar Avin? It is because he accepts the principle that **the burden of proof rests upon the claimant;** without such proof, the owner of the animal pays only the value of a lesser-quality garden bed. **Rather,** Rabbi Yishmael interprets the Torah’s expression “the best of his field” as requiring payment **with the best**-quality land **before him, and what is this?** It is **that which** remained in the field and subsequently **sprouted,** and the compensation is based on the value of this.


###### Bava Kamma 59a:9
[Bava Kamma 59a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/59a:9)

אָמַר מָר, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – שֶׁאָכְלָה לוּלְבֵי גְפָנִים וְיִחוּרֵי תְאֵנִים. הָא סְמָדַר – רוֹאִין אוֹתָן כְּאִילּוּ עֲנָבִים עוֹמְדוֹת לִיבָּצֵר. אֵימָא סֵיפָא: אָכְלָה פַּגִּים אוֹ בוֹסֶר הוּא דְּרוֹאִין אוֹתָן כְּאִילּוּ עֲנָבִים עוֹמְדוֹת לִיבָּצֵר, הָא סְמָדַר – רוֹאִין אוֹתָן כַּמָּה הִיא יָפָה וְכַמָּה הָיְתָה יָפָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara examines the *baraita*. **The Master said: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: In what** case **is this statement** that the court appraises the vineyard or group of trees that were damaged **said?** It is **when** the animal **ate young branches of vines or shoots of fig** trees. The Gemara comments: **This** indicates that if the animal ate **budding** grapes the court **views them** and appraises them **as if** they were **grapes ready to be picked.** But **say,** and try to explain accordingly, **the latter clause** of the *baraita*, which teaches that if the animal **ate unripe figs or half-ripe grapes, that is** where the court **views them as if** they were **grapes ready to be picked,** indicating that if the animal ate the grapes in the **budding** stage, the court **views how much** the vineyard **was worth** before the animal ate them **and how much it is worth** now. Therefore, the two clauses of the *baraita* appear to be contradictory.


###### Bava Kamma 59a:10
[Bava Kamma 59a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/59a:10)

אָמַר רָבִינָא, כְּרוֹךְ וּתְנִי: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בִּזְמַן שֶׁאָכְלָה לוּלְבֵי גְפָנִים וְיִחוּרֵי תְאֵנִים, אֲבָל אָכְלָה סְמָדַר פַּגִּין אוֹ בוֹסֶר – רוֹאִין אוֹתָן כְּאִילּוּ עֲנָבִים עוֹמְדוֹת לִיבָּצֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said: Bind** them together **and teach** them as a single statement, as follows: **In what** case **is this statement said** that the court appraises how much the field was worth when the animal ate from it? It is said in a case **when** the animal **ate young branches of vines or shoots of fig trees. But** if it **ate** grapes in the **budding** stage, **unripe figs, or half-ripe grapes,** the court **views them** and appraises them **as if** they were **grapes ready to be picked.**


###### Bava Kamma 59a:11
[Bava Kamma 59a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/59a:11)

אִי הָכִי, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה הַיְינוּ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda is** identical to the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua** with regard to grapes in the budding stage. Why would the mishna state their opinions separately?


###### Bava Kamma 59a:12
[Bava Kamma 59a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/59a:12)

אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ כְּחַשׁ גּוּפְנָא; וְלָא מְסַיְּימִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **There is** a difference **between them** with regard to **the weakening of the vine.** A vine is weakened by the grapes growing on it, as they draw nutrients from the roots and branches. Now that the grapes have been eaten, the vine is no longer weakened. Therefore, according to one opinion, the court takes into consideration this reduction of the weakening of the vine, and that amount is deducted when calculating the damages, whereas according to the other opinion, the court does not take this into account. **But** their respective opinions are **not defined,** and it is not clear which *tanna* takes this weakening into account and which does not.


###### Bava Kamma 59a:13
[Bava Kamma 59a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/59a:13)

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: מְסַיְּימִי וּמְסַיְּימִי! מַאן תַּנָּא דְּחָיֵישׁ לִכְחַשׁ גּוּפְנָא – רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא: אוֹנֵס אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַצַּעַר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁסּוֹפָהּ לְהִצְטַעֵר תַּחַת בַּעְלָהּ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה נִבְעֶלֶת בְּרָצוֹן לְנִבְעֶלֶת בְּאוֹנֶס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said:** Their respective opinions **are certainly defined,** and it is possible to know which Sage held which opinion, since **who is the *tanna*** who **is concerned for the weakening of the vine? It is Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya:** With regard to the indemnity payments that **a rapist** must pay his victim, who had been a virgin, he **does not pay** compensation for **the pain** caused by the rape. This is **due to** the fact that **she will ultimately suffer** the same pain during her first act of sexual intercourse **with her husband** when she marries. The Rabbis **said to him:** The pain of a woman who **has intercourse willingly is not comparable to** the pain of a woman **who has intercourse by rape.** Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda considers future pain when considering payment of damages, and similarly, he considers the reduced weakening of the vine.


###### Bava Kamma 59a:14
[Bava Kamma 59a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/59a:14)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה, אָמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה – הָא דַּאֲמַרַן. הָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי מַאי הִיא –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: These *tanna’im*** following **and Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda said the same thing** concerning this matter. **Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda** said **this** ruling **that we said** with regard to the case of rape and the case of the vine. As to **these** other ***tanna’im*, what is** the case about which they gave a similar ruling?


###### Bava Kamma 59a:15
[Bava Kamma 59a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/59a:15)

דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: נְכֵי חַיָּה. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר: נְכֵי מְזוֹנוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as it is taught** in a *baraita* concerning the *halakha* of one who injured a pregnant woman, thereby causing her to miscarry, for which the Torah holds him liable to pay her husband compensation. **Rabbi Yosei says:** The court appraises the compensation for the miscarried offspring and **deducts** the amount they would have paid for **a midwife.** Since she miscarried, the husband no longer has to pay for a midwife, so that is deducted from the compensation. **Ben Azzai says:** The court **deducts** the value of the extra **sustenance** the husband would have been required to provide for his pregnant wife.


###### Bava Kamma 59a:16
[Bava Kamma 59a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/59a:16)

מַאן דְּאָמַר נְכֵי חַיָּה, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן נְכֵי מְזוֹנוֹת. וּמַאן דְּאָמַר נְכֵי מְזוֹנוֹת, אֲבָל נְכֵי חַיָּה – לָא, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: אִתְּתָא דִּידִי פְּקִיחָא הִיא, וְלָא מִבַּעְיָא חַיָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The one who says** that the court appraises the compensation for the miscarried offspring **less** the amount they would have paid for **a midwife** would **all the more so** concede that the appraisal is **less** the value of the extra **sustenance. But the one who says** that the appraisal is **less** the value of the extra **sustenance** does **not** necessarily hold that the court appraises the compensation for the miscarried offspring **less** the money they would have paid for **a midwife, since** the husband **can say to** the assailant: **My wife is capable and does not require a midwife** to assist her when giving birth.


###### Bava Kamma 59a:17
[Bava Kamma 59a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/59a:17)

רַב פָּפָּא וְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ עֲבוּד עוֹבָדָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן בְּשִׁשִּׁים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Returning to the discussion of the appraisal of compensation for damage, the Gemara relates: **Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, acted in accordance with** the opinion **of Rav Naḥman** and appraised a damaged date palm **relative to** an area **sixty** times greater than the particular area where the tree was standing.


###### Bava Kamma 59a:18
[Bava Kamma 59a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/59a:18)

לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא: רַב פָּפָּא וְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שָׁמוּ דִּקְלָא אַגַּב קַטִּינָא דְאַרְעָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A different version** of this *halakha* is also stated: **Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, appraised** the damage caused to **a date palm relative to** the assessment of **the patch of land** where the tree stood, i.e., how much it was worth with the tree and how much it was worth without it.


###### Bava Kamma 59a:19
[Bava Kamma 59a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/59a:19)

וְהִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא וְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּדִקְלָא (דַ)אֲרַמָּאָה, וְהִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא בְּדִקְלָא פָרְסָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes: **And the *halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, with regard to an Aramean date palm,** i.e., one of lesser quality, and it is assessed relative to the land, **but the *halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion **of the Exilarch with regard to a Persian date palm,** as they are of higher quality and each one is valuable, and it is not assessed relative to the land.


###### Bava Kamma 59a:20
[Bava Kamma 59a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/59a:20)

אֱלִיעֶזֶר זְעֵירָא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **Eliezer Ze’eira**