Bava Kamma - Daf 59
- Assessing damage to undeveloped grain based on the field’s current value or harvest time value
A Baraisa on 58b discussed assessing חזיז - newly sprouted grain which was eaten by one’s animal. Rebbe Yose HaGlili said: נידון במשוייר שבו – it is judged based on what remains in the field, meaning the remaining grain is evaluated at harvest time to determine the damage of the undeveloped grain. The Chachomim say we assess the value of the land with its stalks (before it was damaged), and its value after its stalks were damaged (thus, they follow the grain’s current value). Abaye says that Rebbe Yose HaGlili and Rebbe Yishmael share the same opinion. Rebbe Yishmael says that when the Torah taught to pay “his” choicest field or vineyard, it means: מיטב שדהו של ניזק ומיטב כרמו של ניזק – the ניזק’s choicest field and the ניזק’s choicest vineyard. Abaye explains this to mean במיטב דלקמיה – its choicest value later on, at harvest, which is assessed כי היאך דסליק – based on how the rest of the field turns out.
- כחש גופנא
The above Baraisa taught that if an animal ate סמדר – budding grapes, Rebbe Yehoshua says he pays what their value would be at harvest. After the Gemara establishes that Rebbe Shimon ben Yehudah is saying the same thing, it explains that they argue about כחש גופנא – deducting the weakening of the vine which would have occurred if the grapes had remained on the vine until harvesting, drawing nourishment from the vine. The Gemara says it is unknown which Tanna holds it is deducted, but Abaye proves it is Rebbe Shimon ben Yehudah: He taught that one who violates a virgin does not pay compensation for her pain, מפני שסופה להצטער תחת בעלה – because she eventually would have endured this pain under her husband (the Chachomim disagree, saying the pain from forced relations is incomparable with that from willing relations). Abaye says two other Tannaim deduct future benefits from damage payments. Regarding the payment of דמי ולדות for causing a miscarriage, Rebbe Yose says: נכי חיה – we deduct the fee for a midwife, which the husband would have paid if his wife had carried to term. Ben Azzai says: נכי מזונות – we deduct the cost of the additional food the woman would have required if her pregnancy had continued. Their machlokes is explained.
- A fire to which multiple people contributed
The Mishnah states that if one sends fire with a deaf-mute, an insane person, or a minor, he is not compelled to pay in court for damages but is חייב בדיני שמים – liable by the laws of Heaven. If he handed it to a competent person, that person is liable for any damages. אחד הביא את האור – If one brought the fire, ואחד הביא את העצים – and then one brought the wood and put it on the fire, המביא את העצים חייב – the one who brought the wood is liable for damages, since the fire would not have spread without the added wood. If one brought wood and then another brought fire, the one who brought the fire is liable. If another person came and fanned the fire, without which it would not have grown to a fire capable of damage, he alone is liable. If it was fanned by a wind, all of them are exempt. As quoted on Daf 22b, Reish Lakish says one is only exempt for handing a coal to an incompetent person but would be liable for handing him a flame. Rebbe Yochanan says one is even exempt for handing him a flame.
