WHEN AN ANIMAL PAYS AS MUCH AS IT BENEFITED [line 1]
Answer: No, rather Rav teaches a bigger Chidush;
It pays the benefit not only when it ate, rather, even when it fell on fruits. We do not say that Reuven is exempt because the fruits merely 'chased away a lion' (prevented damage).
Question: Why don't we say this?
Answer #1: That exemption is only when he intended to prevent damage. Here, he did not.
Answer #2: That exemption is only when the chaser did not suffer a loss. Here, he lost.
Question: How did the animal fall?
Answer #1 (Rav Kahana): It slipped on its urine.
Answer #2 (Rava): Another animal (of Reuven) pushed it.
Rava agrees that all the more so if it slipped on its urine, it pays (only) the benefit.
Rav Kahana would say that if another animal pushed it, it pays the damage. They should have been led single file. It was negligence to lead them side by side.
(Rav Kahana): It pays (only) the benefit in the patch it fell into. If it entered another patch, it pays the damage.
(R. Yochanan): Even if it entered another patch, even if it eats all day long, it only pays the benefit, until it leaves and returns with his knowledge.
(Rav Papa): He does not mean that Reuven found out and did not lock it up properly (minimal guarding). Rather, once he finds out that it left, even if he locks it properly (he is liable if it returns).
Question: What is the reason?
Answer: Once it found a place to eat, it will return whenever it can (so it must be guarded well).
ONES AT THE END [line 20]
(Mishnah): If it entered normally, it pays the damage.
Question (R. Yirmiyah): If it entered normally and damaged through natal water, what is the law?
According to the opinion that only one who was negligent at the beginning and Ones at the end, surely he is liable;
The question is according to the opinion that exempts negligence at the beginning when the end was Ones:
Here also, he was negligent at the beginning and Ones at the end, so he is exempt;
Or, perhaps this is all negligence. Since he knew that it would give birth soon, he should have been careful with it?
This question is unresolved.
EVALUATION OF THE DAMAGE [line 1]
(Mishnah): We evaluate the damage (by evaluating a Beis Se'ah...)
Question: What is the source of this?
Answer (Rav Masnah): "It will consume in a different field" - we evaluate the damage based on another field.
Question: We need that verse to exempt (Shen) in a Reshus ha'Rabim!
Answer: If it only came to teach that, it should say 'his friend's field' or 'a different field';
Rather, it says "in a different field" to teach that we evaluate the damage as if it were in another field.
Question: Perhaps the verse only comes to teach that!
Answer: If so, it should have been written regarding the payments, 'from the best of his field and vineyard he will pay in another field';
The Torah wrote it regarding the damage, so we learn both.
Question: How do we evaluate?
Answer #1 (R. Yosi bar Chanina): (We consider how much the damaged area would decrease the value of) a Beis Se'ah sold amidst a field of 60 Beis Se'ah. (Larger fields are proportionally cheaper, for only rich people can buy them.)
Answer #2 (R. Yanai): We consider a half-Beis Se'ah amidst (a field) 60 times as big. (Meiri, Maharam Shif - we consider how much the damaged area would decrease the value of a Beis Se'ah sold amidst a field of 30 Beis Se'ah.)
Answer #3 (Chizkiyah): We evaluate (the decreased value due to) the amount eaten among 60 times as much.
Question (Beraisa): If it ate one or two Kavim, we evaluate amidst (among) a small patch.
Suggestion: We evaluate the small patch by itself.
Answer: No, we evaluate it amidst 60 times as much (each Amora according to his opinion).
(Beraisa): We do not estimate the value of one Kav, for this makes it better. We do not estimate the value of a Beis Kor (one Kor is 30 Se'ah), for this makes it worse.
Question: What does this mean?
Answer #1 (Rav Papa): We do not estimate the value of one Kav (eaten) among 60 Kavim, for this favors the damager. We do not estimate the value of one Kor (eaten) among 60 times as much, for this harms the damager. (Rather, we estimate one Se'ah in 60.)
Objection (Rav Huna bar Mano'ach): If so, it should not say 'a Beis Kor', rather 'a Kor' (since that was eaten)!
Answer #2 (Rav Huna bar Mano'ach): We do not estimate the value of one Kav (eaten) alone, for this favors the victim; nor do we estimate it among a Beis Kor, for this hurts the victim;
Rather, we evaluate it among 60 times as much.
EVALUATING DAMAGES DUE TO PEOPLE [line 28]
A case occurred in which Reuven cut down Shimon's date tree.
Reish Galusa (the Exilarch) : I saw that there were three trees together there, and they were worth 100 in all. Reuven must pay one third of this.
Reuven: That is like Persians rule! I will go to Rav Nachman.
Rav Nachman: We evaluate among 60 times as much.
Rava: We said so when a man's property damages. Does it apply when a man himself damages?
Suggestion (Abaye, to Rava): Perhaps you learn a man's damage from the following Beraisa?
(Beraisa): If Levi ruined Yehudah's vineyard when the grapes were unripe, we see how much it was worth before, and how much it is worth now.
The Beraisa does not mention 60.
Rejection (Abaye): That is no proof. A similar Beraisa discusses damage of an animal (and does not mention 60)!
(Beraisa - R. Yosi): If (one's animal) cut the top off a young tree, those who make decrees in Yerushalayim decreed to pay two (silver coins) for a first year tree, and four for a second year tree.
R. Yosi ha'Glili says, if it ate fodder, we evaluate the remnant, what it is worth at harvest time;
Chachamim say, we see how much it was worth before, and how much it is worth now.
R. Yehoshua says, if it ate Semadar (immature grapes right after budding), we view them as if they were ready to be harvested;
Chachamim say, we see how much it was worth before, and how much it is worth now.
R. Shimon ben Yehudah says, this is only when it ate grapes or figs that were just budding. If it ate Pagim or Boser (proper grapes or figs that are not fully grown), we view them as if they were ready to be harvested.
Summation of Rejection: Chachamim say that we see how much it was worth before, and how much it is worth now. They did not mention 60, but we know that this is the law;
The same applies to the Beraisa about a man who damaged!