Based on a Shiur given by Rav Aryeh Lebowitz:
https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/940198/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/from-the-rabbis-desk-destroying-banana-art/
How much does this 'performance artist' need to pay for eating the banana? The cost of the banana, or the cost of the $120,000 piece of art he destroyed?
אסור לגנוב אפי' כל שהוא דין תורה ואסור לגנוב אפי' דרך שחוק ואפי' ע"מ להחזיר או כדי לשלם תשלומי כפל או כדי לצערו הכל אסור כדי שלא ירגיל עצמו בכך:
כל הגונב אפי' שוה פרוטה עובר על לאו דלא תגנובו וחייב לשלם אחד הגונב ממון ישראל או הגונב ממון של עכו"ם ואחד הגונב מגדול או מקטן:
Anyone who steals even on par with a penny’s worth transgressed not stealing and he is obligated to pay, one that steals money of a Jew or who steals money of a non-Jew and one that steals from the great or from the small.
So stealing is certainly not allowed in halacha, even as a joke and even with intention to pay back. But how much would you have to pay in compensation in this case?
Did the eater steal the 'art' or the 'banana'?
If it was a replaceable banana, we could assume that you would only have to pay for the value of the banana itself, as the art continues to exist with a new banana.
Let's assume for the moment that this was an irreplaceable banana...how much would you have to pay? Let's have a look...
ואמר רבה: השורף שטרו של חבירו פטור, דאמר ליה "ניירא קלאי מינך!" מתקיף לה רמי בר חמא...
And Rabba also says: One who burns another’s promissory note is exempt, as the one who burned it can say to him: I have burned only your paper, and he is not held liable for the fact that the creditor will no longer be able to prove that he had provided the loan. Rami bar Ḥama objects to this...
A 'shtar chova'/'promissory note' is a document someone holds which entitles them to claim a certain amount of money (let's say, $120,000) from someone else...
אמר אמימר: מאן דדאין 'דינא דגרמי' מגבי ביה דמי שטרא מעליא. ומאן דלא דאין 'דינא דגרמי' מגבי ביה דמי ניירא בעלמא הוה.
The Gemara cites a ruling for the case where one burns the promissory note of another. Ameimar said: The one who rules that there is liability for damage caused by indirect action collects, in this case, the value of a proper promissory note, i.e., the amount of the debt, from the one who burned the promissory note. The one who rules that there is no liability for damage caused by indirect action collects, in this case, merely the value of the paper.
(ב) וכן השורף שטר חוב של חבירו חייב לשלם כל החוב שהיה בשטר שאע"פ שאין גוף השטר ממון הרי גרם לאבד ממון ובלבד שיודה לו המזיק ששטר מקויים היה וכך וכך היה כתוב בו ומחמת ששרפו הוא אינו יכול לגבות החוב אבל אם לא האמינו אינו משלם לו אלא דמי הנייר בלבד (ומיירי שאין עדים שיודעים כמה היה כתוב בו שאם היו עדים אינו חייב לו כלום שהם יעשו לו שטר אחר כמו שנתבאר בסי' מ"א) (טור):
(2) So too, one who burns another's loan document must pay the full debt that was in the document. Even though the document itself isn't money, he caused the loss of money. However, the damager must admit the document was authenticated, and [admit to] the amount that was written therein. Since it is burned the debt cannot be collected therewith. If [the damager] doesn't believe [the lender], he doesn't need to pay other than the value of the paper. Gloss: This [is true] is there are no witnesses that know how much was written therein, for if there are witnesses, they can rewrite the document, as explained in ~ 41.
Do you think the banana could serve as a 'promissory note'?
Perhaps the banana has 'gufo momon', it is intrinsically valuable as an art piece, not just as something which can be exchanged to money like a 'shtar chov'?
Who cares if it is a 'promissory note' (therefore garmi) or if it has 'gufo momon'? Surely we have learnt that in either case, you are obligated to pay in full?
Perhaps there is a practical difference...
...ודאי דינא דגרמי אינו אלא מדרבנן ולכך במסור שהראה דאינו אלא גרמי מדרבנן פטור באונס וכשנשא ונתן ביד דעשה מעשה וחייב מדאורייתא חייב אף באונס.
...the law of 'garmi' is definitely derabanan, therefore, you would be exempt for accidental damage, unlike a deoraysa case where you would also be liable for accidental damage.
Or perhaps it fits into another halachik category altogether...
נמצא שמעון מודה מקצת וצריך לישבע כו' והב"ח פי'... דאף על גב דשמעון נשבע שלא היה שוה אלא שלשה דינרים אפי' הכי חייב הפושע לשלם הדינר הד' והיינו מטעמא דפרישית עכ"ל ונלפע"ד... פשיטא שאין הפושע צריך לשלם יותר ממה שהוא שוה לכל אע"פ שהוא חביב בעיני בעל החפץ וזה ברור:
The Bach explains...even though Shimon swears that he only owes three dinarim [for losing/damaging an item Reuven deposited with him], he still needs to pay four dinarim for the reason described above [the owner had additional sentimental value attached to the object].
And in my [Shach's] opinion...
It is obvious that you do not need to pay more than it is worth to everyone, even though it had sentimental value to the owner.
Is the banana intrinsically valuable to the whole world, or is it just 'sentimental' value for one person?
What does the fact that it has actually been sold for that price say about it's value?
In conclusion, it would seem that in this case, seeing as they replaced the banana almost immediately and the art continued to exist, he would only have to pay for the price of the actual banana that he stole.
However, had the situation been that the art only existed if this banana was stuck to the wall, whether you view the banana as intrinsically valuable or as a 'promissory note', it would seem that he would have had to pay $120,000. Had he accidently eaten the irreplaceable banana, it would become much more important to figure out exactly what the status of the banana was.
Comments/corrections: [email protected]