Study Bava Kamma folio 58A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
״לא מבעיא״ קאמר: לא מבעיא אכלה – דמשלמת מה שנהנית; אבל נחבטה – אימא מבריח ארי מנכסי חבירו הוא, ומה שנהנית נמי לא משלם; קא משמע לן.
one cannot make such an inference from Rav’s statement. Rav is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary, and this is how to understand his statement: It is not necessary to state that if the animal fell into the garden and ate from its produce, that the owner pays for the benefit that it derives. But if the produce softened the blow of striking the ground and thereby the animal avoided injury, one might say that the owner of the animal should not pay, on the grounds that the owner of the garden may be viewed, analogously, to one who repels a lion from another’s property. In such a case, although the latter benefited from his action, he is not obligated to pay for it. Similarly in this case, one might think that the owner of the animal does not pay even for the benefit that the animal derived. For this reason Rav teaches us that the owner of the animal must pay for this benefit as well.
ואימא הכי נמי!
The Talmud asks: But why not say that this is indeed the halakha, and the owner of the animal should be exempt for paying for the benefit of his animal not being injured?
מבריח ארי מנכסי חבירו – מדעתו הוא, האי – לאו מדעתו. אי נמי, מבריח ארי מנכסי חבירו – לית ליה פסידא, האי – אית ליה פסידא.
The Talmud answers: One who repels a lion from another’s property does so with intent, knowing that he would be ineligible for payment. By contrast, this owner of the garden did not act with intent and would have preferred for the incident not to have happened. Alternatively, one could say that one who repels a lion from another’s property does not thereby have any loss himself. By contrast, this owner of the garden has a loss, in that his produce is damaged.