Bava Kamma

The rules are three in number, but the places to which they apply may be divided into four. MISHNAH. THE VALUATION [IS MADE] IN MONEY [BUT MAY BE PAID] BY MONEY'S WORTH, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE COURT AND ON THE EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES WHO ARE FREE MEN AND PERSONS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE LAW. WOMEN ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF TORTS. [BOTH] THE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT ARE INVOLVED IN THE PAYMENT. GEMARA. What is the meaning of THE VALUATION IN MONEY? Rab Judah said: This valuation must be made only in specie. We thus learn here that which has been taught by our Rabbis elsewhere:  In the case of a cow damaging a garment while the garment also damaged the cow, it should not be said that the damage done by the cow is to be set off against the damage done to the garment and the damage done to the garment against the damage done to the cow, the respective damages have to be estimated at a money value. BY MONEY'S WORTH. [This is explained by what] our Rabbis taught [elsewhere]:  'MONEY'S WORTH' implies that the Court will not have recourse for distraint save to immovable property. Nevertheless if the plaintiff himself seized some chattels beforehand, the Court will collect payment for him out of them. The Master stated: "'MONEY'S WORTH" implies that the Court will not have recourse for distraint save to immovable property. How is this implied? Rabbah b. 'Ulla said: The article of distress has to be worth all that is paid for it [in money].  What does this mean? An article which is not subject to the law of deception?  Are not slaves and deeds also not subject to the law of deception?  — Rabbah b. 'Ulla therefore said: An article, title to which is acquired by means of money.  Are not slaves  and deeds  similarly acquired by means of money.  R. Ashi therefore said: 'Money's worth' implies that which has money's worth,  whereas chattels are considered actual money. Rab Judah b. Hinena pointed out the following contradiction to R. Huna the son of R. Joshua: It has been taught: 'MONEY'S FORTH implies that the Court will not have recourse for distraint save to immovable property; behold, was it not taught: He shall return  includes 'money's worth', even bran?  — [In the former Baraitha] we are dealing with a case of heirs.  If we are dealing with heirs read the concluding clause: 'If the plaintiff himself seized some chattels beforehand, the Court will collect payment for him out of them.' Now, if we are dealing with heirs, how may the Court collect payment for him out of them? — As already elsewhere  stated by Raba on behalf of R. Nahman, that the plaintiff seized [the chattels] while the original defendant was still alive, so here too, the seizure took place while the defendant was still alive. IN THE PRESENCE OF THE COURT,  [apparently] exempts a case where the defendant sold his possessions before having been summoned to Court. May it hence be derived that in the case of one who borrowed money and sold his possessions before having been summoned to Court, the Court does not collect the debt out of the estate which has been disposed of?  — The text therefore excepts a Court of laymen. ON THE EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES, thus excepting a confession of [an act punishable by] a fine for which subsequently there appeared witnesses, in which case there is exemption. That would accord with the view that in the case of a confession of [an act punishable by] a fine, for which subsequently there appeared witnesses, there is exemption;  but according to the opposite view that in the case of a confession of [an act punishable by] a fine for which subsequently appeared witnesses, there is liability,  what may be said [to be the import of the text]? — The important point comes in the concluding clause: