If the animal ate the grapes while they were in the budding stage, Rabbi Yehoshua says: The court views the grapes that were damaged as if they were grapes about to be picked, and appraise the damage based on this. And the Rabbis say: The court views how much the vineyard was worth before the animal ate the grapes, and how much it is worth now. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: In what case is this statement, that the court appraises the vineyard or group of trees that were damaged, said? It is when the animal ate young branches [lulevei gefanim] of vines or shoots of fig trees, but where it ate unripe figs or unripe grapes, the court views them and appraises them as if they were grapes ready to be picked.

Abaye continues: In any event, it teaches that the Rabbis say: The court views how much the vineyard was worth before the animal ate the produce and how much it is worth now, and it does not teach that the court appraises the damage relative to an area sixty times greater.

Rather, what have you to say? You must say that the wording employed by the baraita is to be understood to mean that the court appraises the damage relative to an area sixty times greater, so here too, in the baraita dealing with one who himself causes damage, the wording is to be understood to mean that the damage is valued relative to an area sixty times greater.

Abaye said: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Yishmael both said the same thing. They are of the same opinion that the appraisal for damages is based on the value of the produce remaining in the field once it ripens.

The opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili is this that we stated above in the baraita, i.e., that the damages paid for an animal eating unripe grain are assessed according to what remains of the grain.

The opinion of Rabbi Yishmael is as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “The best of his field and the best of his vineyard he shall pay” (Exodus 22:4), which means he must pay according to the best-quality field of the injured party or the best-quality vineyard of the injured party. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: The verse comes only to allow injured parties to collect compensation from the superior-quality land of the one liable to pay for the damage, and by an a fortiori inference it is derived that this applies to consecrated property. Compensation for damaging consecrated property is paid from one’s best-quality assets.

And do not say that Rabbi Yishmael’s statement should be interpreted in accordance with the opinion of Rav Idi bar Avin, as Rav Idi bar Avin says: Here it concerns a case where the animal ate the produce of one garden bed from among several garden beds, but we do not know whether the garden bed it ate from was lean or choice. Therefore, the verse says to the owner of the animal: Arise and pay choice land, equivalent to the best-quality land that there is now remaining, and the court does not assume that the animal ate produce from the lesser-quality garden bed, as we do not say this.

What is the reason that Rabbi Yishmael does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rav Idi bar Avin? It is because he accepts the principle that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant; without such proof, the owner of the animal pays only the value of a lesser-quality garden bed. Rather, Rabbi Yishmael interprets the Torah’s expression “the best of his field” as requiring payment with the best-quality land before him, and what is this? It is that which remained in the field and subsequently sprouted, and the compensation is based on the value of this.

The Gemara examines the baraita. The Master said: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: In what case is this statement that the court appraises the vineyard or group of trees that were damaged said? It is when the animal ate young branches of vines or shoots of fig trees. The Gemara comments: This indicates that if the animal ate budding grapes the court views them and appraises them as if they were grapes ready to be picked. But say, and try to explain accordingly, the latter clause of the baraita, which teaches that if the animal ate unripe figs or half-ripe grapes, that is where the court views them as if they were grapes ready to be picked, indicating that if the animal ate the grapes in the budding stage, the court views how much the vineyard was worth before the animal ate them and how much it is worth now. Therefore, the two clauses of the baraita appear to be contradictory.

Ravina said: Bind them together and teach them as a single statement, as follows: In what case is this statement said that the court appraises how much the field was worth when the animal ate from it? It is said in a case when the animal ate young branches of vines or shoots of fig trees. But if it ate grapes in the budding stage, unripe figs, or half-ripe grapes, the court views them and appraises them as if they were grapes ready to be picked.

The Gemara asks: If so, the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda is identical to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua with regard to grapes in the budding stage. Why would the mishna state their opinions separately?

The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them with regard to the weakening of the vine. A vine is weakened by the grapes growing on it, as they draw nutrients from the roots and branches. Now that the grapes have been eaten, the vine is no longer weakened. Therefore, according to one opinion, the court takes into consideration this reduction of the weakening of the vine, and that amount is deducted when calculating the damages, whereas according to the other opinion, the court does not take this into account. But their respective opinions are not defined, and it is not clear which tanna takes this weakening into account and which does not.

Abaye said: Their respective opinions are certainly defined, and it is possible to know which Sage held which opinion, since who is the tanna who is concerned for the weakening of the vine? It is Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya: With regard to the indemnity payments that a rapist must pay his victim, who had been a virgin, he does not pay compensation for the pain caused by the rape. This is due to the fact that she will ultimately suffer the same pain during her first act of sexual intercourse with her husband when she marries. The Rabbis said to him: The pain of a woman who has intercourse willingly is not comparable to the pain of a woman who has intercourse by rape. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda considers future pain when considering payment of damages, and similarly, he considers the reduced weakening of the vine.

Abaye said: These tanna’im following and Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda said the same thing concerning this matter. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda said this ruling that we said with regard to the case of rape and the case of the vine. As to these other tanna’im, what is the case about which they gave a similar ruling?

This is as it is taught in a baraita concerning the halakha of one who injured a pregnant woman, thereby causing her to miscarry, for which the Torah holds him liable to pay her husband compensation. Rabbi Yosei says: The court appraises the compensation for the miscarried offspring and deducts the amount they would have paid for a midwife. Since she miscarried, the husband no longer has to pay for a midwife, so that is deducted from the compensation. Ben Azzai says: The court deducts the value of the extra sustenance the husband would have been required to provide for his pregnant wife.

The one who says that the court appraises the compensation for the miscarried offspring less the amount they would have paid for a midwife would all the more so concede that the appraisal is less the value of the extra sustenance. But the one who says that the appraisal is less the value of the extra sustenance does not necessarily hold that the court appraises the compensation for the miscarried offspring less the money they would have paid for a midwife, since the husband can say to the assailant: My wife is capable and does not require a midwife to assist her when giving birth.

Returning to the discussion of the appraisal of compensation for damage, the Gemara relates: Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, acted in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman and appraised a damaged date palm relative to an area sixty times greater than the particular area where the tree was standing.

A different version of this halakha is also stated: Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, appraised the damage caused to a date palm relative to the assessment of the patch of land where the tree stood, i.e., how much it was worth with the tree and how much it was worth without it.

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, with regard to an Aramean date palm, i.e., one of lesser quality, and it is assessed relative to the land, but the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Exilarch with regard to a Persian date palm, as they are of higher quality and each one is valuable, and it is not assessed relative to the land.

The Gemara relates: Eliezer Ze’eira