4

I was learning Bava Kamma 6b and am having trouble understanding the machlokes between R' Yismael and R' Akiva.

One problem I'm having is at the part of the sugya with Rav Idi bar Avin, he said that R' Yishmael is talking about a case where the animal ate a "row amongst the rows", there are heavy-fruit rows and weak rows nearby (because if there was only one type we'd probably assume that the eaten row was of that type) and we don't know which type of row was eaten, so because of a doubt, the damager has to pay as if he damaged a full row.

But the Gemara right afterwards says that this is a case of "one extracting money from his friend, and the burden of proof is on him" -- when someone (the damaged party) wants to take away money from the damager, he has to prove that it was the best row eaten, and if not then he's only entitled to the weakest row. What did the previous part assume, to say that he pays for a full row? It doesn't explain what the actual argument is. What would R' Akiva hold if it was a "row between the rows", he would hold the opposite that he pays the value of a weak one? But R' Akiva only obligates him for the actual value, so would he agree with R' Yishmael that he pays for a full one? But then what would the argument be at that point?

And also the previous section in fact did take into account that "one who takes money from his friend has to pay", since it (a.k.a., Rashi) said that the row is amongst big and small rows, the simple reason for Rashi saying that is probably because if it was only among weak ones, for sure the damaged one has to prove himself that it was a big row before demanding it, so what changed in between the 2 sections of the Gemara?

  • 1
    It would be better to be specific; open-ended questions that change after people start answering are a problem for our format. I suggest editing in the text you're asking about and saying what you're having trouble understanding. Are you having trouble understanding their two positions? – Monica Cellio Feb 8 '18 at 22:49
  • Yes, basically. I amde another question on this issue but it was too complicated and they put it on hold, so now I'm just asking simply: what is the meaning of they're different opinions in the hava amina / maskono of the gemara (I could be even more specific, but then it would get complicated) – Yaakov5777 Feb 8 '18 at 22:57
  • Hi Yaakov. Does this help? – ezra Feb 8 '18 at 23:00
  • 1
    @Yaakov5777 It would help if you let me in on some of your confusion, that way I can look for specific things to help you understand the sugya. What about the machlokes do you not understand? – ezra Feb 9 '18 at 0:42
  • 1
    @sabbahillel thanks I'm reading it now with the notes, but it still doesn't fully clarify the depth of each section, for example at Rav Idi bar Avin it doesn't explain what the actual argument is, what would R' Akiva hold if it was a "row between the rows", he would hold the opposite that he pays the value of a weak one? But R' Akiva only obligates him for the actual value, so would he agree with R' Yishmael that he pays for a full one? But then what would the argument be at that point? – Yaakov5777 Feb 9 '18 at 0:44
0

Summary of Bava Kama 6a and Gittin 48b-49a:
Lets say a row of top range produce was worth $50 and the same size row of bottom range produce is worth $25.

Tosfos explains that according to Rav Idi Bar Avin initially in the Gemara, when in doubt what was damaged Rabbi Yihmael pays the maximum and Rabbi Akiva says we only pay the minimum:

אמר רבי עקיבא לא בא הכתוב אלא לגבות לניזקין מן העידית משמע ששמע מר' ישמעאל שבא הכתוב לחייב יותר ממה שהזיק כגון דאם אכל כחושה משלם שמינה:

  • Rabbi Yishmael would warrant a payment of a full row of the top produce i.e $50 even though he might have damaged the same size full row with lesser produce worth $25.
  • Rabbi Akiva however would never have required to pay a cent more than the minimum amount of damage i.e $25, though the payment is with land that is top produce so one would give half a row of top produce worth $25 to pay for damages.

However in the conclusion of the Gemora according to Rav Acha bar Yaakov both Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva agree Hamotzi mechaveiro alav haraaya One pays the minimum without any further proof, so the payment is only $25. The Gemorra explains that they only dispute which type of land to pay when they are rich:

כגון שהיתה עידית דניזק כזיבורית דמזיק ובהא פליגי רבי ישמעאל סבר בדניזק שיימינן ורבי עקיבא סבר בדמזיק שיימינן

  • Rabbi Yishmael requires one who is rich and his low quality land is worth $50 a row to pay half a row of this land (worth $25) which is the highest quality of the victims field (The rich man has even better produce worth $100 a row which he keeps).

  • Rabbi Akiva says that this rich man has to pay a quarter of his best qualty $100 row of produce worh $25

Note:
1. if a poor man damaged a poor man or rich man he gives the value of damage with the best land he's got according to everyone (Tosfos Kegon Gittin 49a).
2. Like wise if a rich mans worst land was better than the poor mans best land, then everyone agrees the rich man pays the damage equivalent with his best (Gemara ibid).
3. Also If one wants to he can pay money/movable goods instead of land as Bava Kama 7a says ישיב לרבות שוה כסף.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .