More Discussions for this daf
1. Shamin Al Gav Karka 2. The case of Shen or Regel 3. Laws of Heaven
4. Question on Insights 5. Paying for Hana'ah in a case of Ones 6. קשרו בעליו במוסירה
DAF DISCUSSIONS - BAVA KAMA 55

RIJ asked:

The beginning of the 6th ch. says we estimate damage to a field in relation to the entire field.Is this limited to a field or is it the same for a scratch in a car or a broken window in a building where we estimate the damage in relationship to the whole object resulting in negligible payment. Further why does the torah want to be lenient on the mazik.

The Kollel replies:

When we relate to damages other than those of the produce of a field, the simplest understanding is that we do not need a Chidush to tell us that you do not pay for the repairs. The premise is that there is no reason for the Nizak to end up with more than he had in the first place. If he had a car worth $1000, and now he has a car worth $950 plus a hundred dollars in his hand that is the result. The Mazik can only be liable for actual loss, which can only be assessed in money terms; incidental expenses are no more than Grama. However, when it comes to produce, where it was bound to become two objects, a field and produce which has a larger total value than the field with the produce, there is the Chidush that we look at the field and not the two parts.

However, the Chazon Ish (Bava Kama 6) takes up your position and says that the Mazik must "fill" the damage (Yashlimenu) and therefore something which is primarily not for sale, like a house or a car, we cannot tell the Nizak to sell it and therefore the Mazik must pay for the repairs.

Dov Zupnik