Bava Kamma 58B

ולאסתמורי בגוה? תיקו.

and taken care of it, and he bears responsibility for failing to do so. The dilemma should stand unresolved.

כיצד משלמת מה שהזיקה וכו׳. מנא הני מילי?

§ The Mishnah teaches: How does the court appraise the value of the damage when the owner pays for what it damaged? The court appraises a large piece of land with an area required for sowing one se’a of seed [beit se’a] in that field, including the garden bed in which the damage took place, it appraises how much it was worth before the animal damaged it and how much is it worth now, and the owner must pay the difference. The Talmud asks: From where are these matters derived?

אמר רב מתנה, דאמר קרא: ״ובער בשדה אחר״⁠ – מלמד ששמין על גב שדה אחר.

Rav Mattana says: As the verse states: “And it feed in another field [uvi’er bisde aḥer]” (Exodus 22:4). This teaches that the court appraises the damage relative to another field, i.e., relative to the damaged field as a whole and not an appraisal of only the specific garden bed that was damaged.

האי ״ובער בשדה אחר״ מבעי ליה לאפוקי רשות הרבים!

The Talmud asks: But this phrase: “Uvi’er bisde aḥer,” can be understood as meaning: “And it feed in another’s field,” and accordingly, is necessary to teach that the owner is not liable unless it was a field with an owner, to exclude damage caused by an animal in the public domain, for which the owner is not liable.

אם כן, לכתוב רחמנא ״ובער בשדה חבירו״, אי נמי ״שדה אחר״! מאי ״בשדה אחר״? ששמין על גב שדה אחר.

The Talmud answers: If so, if this was the sole intention of the verse, let God write in the Torah: And it feed in a field belonging to another [uvi’er bisde ḥaveiro], or alternatively, let it write: And it consume another field [sedeh aḥer].” What is conveyed by the particular expression: “In another field [bisde aḥer]”? It is to teach that the court appraises the damage relative to another field.