Gemara Notes p. 39

דף נז עמוד ב

דף נח עמוד א –

If an animal fell into someone’s property accidentally, the owner pays for what it benefited (not what it damaged)

said: The benefit that he pays for was that the animal רבwas saved by the produce that it fell on and crushed

This implies that the owner wouldn’t have to pay for any benefit of produce had the animal eaten some. Why not?

This follows רב‘s reasoning in other cases that…

said: If one animal became sick רבfrom eating another person’s food, he is פטור because he can claim“It should not have eaten it!”

Just because רב holds he doesn’t have to pay for an animal that injured itself doesn’t mean that the owner is not responsible for damage it causes to others!

really meant… he EVEN pays for the benefit רבof being saved by the produce he fell on. (But of course pays for what he ate too)

לא מבעיא

is done מבריח אריvoluntarily. This animal was saved without the knowledge of the owner of the field

is done מבריח אריwithout losing any money. In our case, the owner of the field lost the produce that was ruined

really meant… NOT ONLY does he pay for רבwhat the animal ate, but he EVEN pays for the benefit of being saved by the produce he fell on.

Why “EVEN”?One might have thought this would be like the case of מבריח ארי, where you don’t get paid for saving his property. The owner of the field shouldn’t get paid for breaking the animals fall

So why isn’t it like the case of Why does he have to ?מבריח אריpay?

Gemara Notes 39-40.דף נז: - נח