Study Bava Kamma folio 59A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
If the animal ate the grapes while they were in the budding stage, R' 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
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 60 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 60 times greater, so here too, in the baraita dealing with one who himself causes damage, the wording is to be understood to mean
Abaye said: R' Yosei HaGelili and R' 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 R' 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.