Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

June 30, 2019 | ื›ืดื– ื‘ืกื™ื•ืŸ ืชืฉืขืดื˜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Arakhin 14

All the cases in the Torah where there is a set amount that one needs to pay (and is not dependent on its actual value) it can sometimes end up being more stringent and sometimes more lenient, depending on the articular situation.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ืžืœืชื ืื’ื‘ ืื•ืจื—ื™ื” ืงืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื›ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืกื•ืจ ืœืื“ื ืฉื™ืืžืจ ื›ืžื” ื ืื” ื’ื•ื™ ื–ื”

by not mentioning gentiles, the mishna teaches us another matter in passing, in accordance with the statement that Rav Yehuda says that Rav says. As Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: It is prohibited for a person to say: How beautiful is this gentile.

ื•ืœื™ืชื ื™ ืืช ื”ื ืื” ืฉื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ืืช ื”ื›ืขื•ืจ ืฉื‘ื’ื•ื™ื ื‘ื—ื“ ืื•ืžื” ืงืžื™ื™ืจื™ ื‘ืชืจื™ ืื•ืžื” ืœื ืžื™ื™ืจื™

The Gemara asks: But if this is the only reason that a gentile is not mentioned, let the mishna teach: In the case of one who took a vow of valuation to donate the fixed value of the most attractive among the Jewish people and the most unsightly among the gentiles, he gives the fixed payment of fifty sela to the Temple treasury. The Gemara answers: The tanna prefers to deal with one nation, i.e., Jews, and does not wish to deal with two nations, Jews and gentiles.

ื•ืœื ื•ื”ื ืงืชื ื™ ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืฉื‘ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื•ืืช ื”ืงื˜ื ื” ืฉื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื”ืชื ื—ื“ ืื•ืžื” ื”ื•ื ืืœื ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ื”ื•ื ื“ืงื“ื™ืฉื™ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื˜ืคื™

The Gemara challenges this answer: And does the mishna not deal with two nations? But isnโ€™t it taught in a mishna (14b): One who raped or seduced a young woman, whether she is the most prominent in the priesthood or the lowliest among the Israelites, gives the payment of fifty sela, the fine stated in the Torah. Priests and Israelites are two distinct groups of people, analogous to Jews and gentiles. The Gemara answers: In that mishna there it is one nation, as although there are two groups they are both part of the Jewish people. It is only that the priests have greater sanctity than Israelites.

ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืื™ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืงื ื‘ืขื™ ืœืžืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื“ื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื”ื•ื ื“ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ื‘ื’ื•ื™ ืœื ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ื“ืœืื• ื‘ื ื™ ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืžืฉื•ื ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ืœื” ื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ

And if you wish, say instead that since the mishna wants to teach the case of an ancestral field in the latter clause, which you find in the case of Jews, but you do not find with regard to gentiles, as they are unfit to have ancestral land in Eretz Yisrael, it is due to this reason that the mishna teaches only cases that involve the Jewish people.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื‘ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ืœื”ืงืœ ื•ืœื”ื—ืžื™ืจ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืื—ื“ ื”ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ื‘ื—ื•ืœืช ื”ืžื—ื•ื– ื•ืื—ื“ ื”ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ื‘ืคืจื“ื™ืกื•ืช ืกื‘ืกื˜ื™ ื ื•ืชืŸ ื–ืจืข ื—ื•ืžืจ ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ื‘ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืฉืงืœ ื›ืกืฃ ื•ื‘ืฉื“ื” ืžืงื ื” ื ื•ืชืŸ ืืช ืฉื•ื•ื™ื•

MISHNA: There are halakhot with regard to an ancestral field that are lenient and others that are stringent. How so? Both one who consecrates an ancestral field in the low-quality sands of the areas surrounding the city and one who consecrates the high-quality orchards of Sebastia gives a redemption payment of fifty silver shekels for every area that he consecrated that is fit for sowing a kor of barley (Leviticus 27:16). And with regard to a purchased field that one consecrates, he gives its value as redemption, a sum that can be more or less than fifty shekels for every area required for sowing one kor of barley.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืื—ื“ ืฉื“ื” ืžืงื ื” ื•ืื—ื“ ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ืžื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ืœืฉื“ื” ืžืงื ื” ืฉื‘ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื”ื•ื ื ื•ืชืŸ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื•ื‘ืฉื“ื” ืžืงื ื” ืื™ื ื• ื ื•ืชืŸ ื—ื•ืžืฉ

Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to both a purchased field and an ancestral field, one gives a redemption payment of fifty silver shekels for every area required for sowing a kor of barley that he consecrated. What, then, is the difference between an ancestral field and a purchased field? The difference is that in the case of an ancestral field one gives an additional payment of one-fifth, but in the case of a purchased field one does not give an additional payment of one-fifth.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืฉื“ื” ืžืœื™ืื” ืื™ืœื ื•ืช ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืคื•ื“ืŸ ืคื•ื“ื” ืื™ืœื ื•ืช ื‘ืฉื•ื•ื™ืŸ ื•ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื•ืคื•ื“ื” ืงืจืงืข ื‘ื™ืช ื–ืจืข ื—ื•ืžืจ ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ื‘ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืฉืงืœ ื›ืกืฃ ืืœืžื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืื“ื ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ื‘ืขื™ืŸ ื™ืคื” ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ

GEMARA: Rav Huna says: In a case where one consecrated a field full of trees, when he redeems the trees and field, he redeems the trees according to their value, and then redeems the land according to the fixed formula, by which an area required for the sowing of a kor of barley seed is redeemed for fifty silver shekels. The Gemara notes that evidently Rav Huna holds that when a person consecrates, he consecrates generously. In this case he consecrated the trees and the land separately, so that he would have to redeem them each separately, rather than the trees being redeemed as part of the land.

ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืœืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืื—ื“ ื”ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ื‘ื—ื•ืœืช ื”ืžื—ื•ื– ื•ืื—ื“ ื”ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ื‘ืคืจื“ื™ืกื•ืช ืกื‘ืกื˜ื™ ื ื•ืชืŸ ื‘ื™ืช ื–ืจืข ื—ื•ืžืจ ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ื‘ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืฉืงืœ ื›ืกืฃ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจืื•ื™ื” ืœืคืจื“ื™ืกื•ืช ืงืืžื™ื ื

Rav Naแธฅman raised an objection to Rav Huna from the mishna: Both one who consecrates an ancestral field in the low-quality sands of the areas surrounding the city and one who consecrates the high-quality orchards of Sebastia gives a redemption payment of fifty silver shekels for every area required for sowing a kor of barley that he consecrated. This indicates that when one consecrates orchards he does not redeem the land and the trees separately. Rav Huna said to Rav Naแธฅman: The mishna is speaking of land that is suitable for orchards but does not actually have trees planted on it.

ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ื‘ื™ืช ื–ืจืข ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ื‘ื™ืช ื–ืจืข ืฉื“ื” ื’ืคื ื™ื ื•ืฉื“ื” ืงื ื™ื ื•ืฉื“ื” ืื™ืœื ื•ืช ืžื ื™ืŸ

Rav Naแธฅman raised another objection to Rav Huna from a baraita: When discussing a consecrated ancestral field the Torah states: โ€œAn area fit for sowingโ€ (Leviticus 27:16). I have derived only an area fit for sowing; from where do I derive that the same is true for a field of vines and a field of reeds and a field of trees?

ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉื“ื” ืžื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืคื•ื“ื” ื•ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื•ืคื•ื“ื”

The verse states: โ€œAnd if a man shall consecrate to the Lord part of the field of his possession, then your valuation shall be according to an area fit for sowing; the sowing of a แธฅomer of barley shall be valued at fifty silver shekelsโ€ (Leviticus 27:16). The word โ€œfieldโ€ teaches that this halakha applies in any case, regardless of the type of field. It can be inferred from here that if one consecrates an orchard, the redemption of the trees is not valued separately from the land. Rav Huna said to Rav Naแธฅman: Here too, the baraita means that he first redeems the trees and afterward redeems the field, according to the formula of the Torah.

ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืฉืœืฉื” ืื™ืœื ื•ืช ืžืžื˜ืข ืขืฉืจื” ืœื‘ื™ืช ืกืื” ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืืช ื”ืงืจืงืข ื•ืืช ื”ืื™ืœื ื•ืช ืฉื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ื ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืคื•ื“ื” ืคื•ื“ื” ื‘ื™ืช ื–ืจืข ื—ื•ืžืจ ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ื‘ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืฉืงืœ ื›ืกืฃ

Rav Naแธฅman again raised an objection to Rav Huna from a baraita: If one consecrated three trees in a field where ten trees are planted in an area required for sowing one seโ€™a of seed [beit seโ€™a], he has consecrated not only those trees, but also the land and the young trees between them. Therefore, if this is his ancestral field, when he redeems it, he redeems the land and everything contained within it according to the standard rate established by the Torah, where an area required for the sowing of a kor of barley seed is redeemed for fifty silver shekels.

ืคื—ื•ืช ืžื™ื›ืŸ ืื• ื™ืชืจ ืขืœ ื›ืŸ ืื• ืฉื”ืงื“ื™ืฉืŸ ื‘ื–ื” ืื—ืจ ื–ื” ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืœื ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืœื ืืช ื”ืงืจืงืข ื•ืœื ืืช ื”ืื™ืœื ื•ืช ืฉื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ื

But if the ratio of land to trees was less than that, i.e., the trees were planted more densely, or if the ratio of land to trees was more than that, i.e., the trees were planted less densely, or if he consecrated each of the trees separately, one after the other, this person has consecrated neither the land nor the young trees between them. Therefore, when he redeems, he redeems the trees in accordance with their worth.

ื•ืœื ืขื•ื“ ืืœื ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืื™ืœื ื•ืชื™ื• ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืงืจืงืข ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืคื•ื“ื” ืคื•ื“ื” ืืช ื”ืื™ืœื ื•ืช ื‘ืฉื•ื•ื™ื”ืŸ ื•ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื•ืคื•ื“ื” ืงืจืงืข ื‘ื™ืช ื–ืจืข ื—ื•ืžืจ ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ื‘ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืฉืงืœ ื›ืกืฃ

And moreover, even if one consecrated its trees when they are planted more densely, or less densely, or one after the other, and then afterward he consecrated the land, so that at this point everything belongs to the Temple treasury, when he redeems them, he redeems the trees separately in accordance with their worth, and afterward he redeems the land according to the standard rate, where an area required for the sowing of a แธฅomer, i.e., a kor, of barley seed is redeemed for fifty silver shekels.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืคื•ื“ื” ื•ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื•ืคื•ื“ื” ื”ื ืžื“ืกื™ืคื ืคื•ื“ื” ื•ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื•ืคื•ื“ื” ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืจื™ืฉื ืœื

The Gemara explains the objection: And if you would say that here too, in the first part of the baraita, it means that he redeems the field and afterward redeems the trees, from the fact that the latter clause of the baraita states that he redeems and afterward redeems, by inference the first clause is not referring to a case where he redeems the field and afterward redeems the trees.

ืืœื ื”ื ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ื‘ืขื™ืŸ ืจืขื” ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ื“ืชื ื™ื ื”ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ืืช ื”ืฉื“ื” ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืืช ื›ื•ืœื” ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืืœื ื—ืจื•ื‘ ื”ืžื•ืจื›ื‘ ื•ืกื“ืŸ ื”ืฉืงืžื”

Rather, in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says that when one consecrates, he consecrates sparingly. As it is taught in a baraita: One who consecrates a field has consecrated all of it. Rabbi Shimon says: He only consecrated a grafted carob tree and a sycamore stump.

ืื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ื•ืœื ืขื•ื“ ืืœื ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืื™ืœื ื•ืชื™ื• ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืงืจืงืข ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืคื•ื“ื” ืคื•ื“ื” ืืช ื”ืื™ืœื ื•ืช ื‘ืฉื•ื•ื™ื”ืŸ ื•ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื•ืคื•ื“ื” ื‘ื™ืช ื–ืจืข ื—ื•ืžืจ ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ื‘ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืฉืงืœ ื›ืกืฃ

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, say the latter clause: And moreover, even if one consecrates its trees and then afterward he consecrated the land, when he redeems them he redeems the trees separately in accordance with their worth, and afterward he redeems the land according to the standard rate, where an area required for the sowing of a แธฅomer of barley seed is redeemed for fifty silver shekels.

ื•ืื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืœื™ื–ื™ืœ ื‘ืชืจ ืคื“ื™ื•ืŸ ื•ืœื™ืคืจืงื• ืื’ื‘ ืืจืขื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ื”ื ืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื“ืื–ื™ืœ ื‘ืชืจ ืคื“ื™ื•ืŸ

And if the baraita is according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, let one follow the status of the field at the time of its redemption, and let the trees be redeemed along with their land, as at the time of its redemption both the trees and the land are consecrated. As we have heard that Rabbi Shimon follows the time of the redemption, i.e., he determines the price at which a field is redeemed based on the time it is being redeemed.

ื“ืชื ื™ื ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืœื•ืงื— ืฉื“ื” ืžืื‘ื™ื• ื•ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉื” ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ืžืช ืื‘ื™ื• ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉืชื”ื ืœืคื ื™ื• ื›ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื ืืช ืฉื“ื” ืžืงื ืชื• ืืฉืจ ืœื ืžืฉื“ื” ืื—ื–ืชื•

As it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to one who purchases a field from his father and consecrated it, and afterward his father dies, which means that the field would now be his as an inheritance, from where is it derived that it should be considered before him as an ancestral field, rather than a field that he purchased, with respect to its redemption? The verse states with regard to a field that was purchased: โ€œAnd if he sanctifies to the Lord a field that he has bought, which is not of his ancestral fieldsโ€ (Leviticus 27:22).

ืฉื“ื” ืฉืื™ื ื” ืจืื•ื™ื” ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื™ืฆืชื” ื–ื• ืฉืจืื•ื™ื” ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ

The verse speaks specifically of a field that is not fit at the time of its consecration to be an ancestral field, i.e., one that he could never have inherited in the future. This specification excludes this field that was fit to be an ancestral field from this halakha, since eventually it would have become his through inheritance, even had he not purchased it. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon.

ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืœื•ืงื— ืฉื“ื” ืžืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืžืช ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉื” ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉืชื”ื ืœืคื ื™ื• ื›ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื”

The baraita continues: Rabbi Meir learns a different halakha from this verse and says: From where is it derived that in a case of one who purchases a field from his father and his father dies, and only afterward he consecrated the field, from where is it derived that it should be considered before him like an ancestral field?

ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื ืืช ืฉื“ื” ืžืงื ืชื• ืืฉืจ ืœื ืžืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ืชื• ืฉื“ื” ืฉืื™ื ื” ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื™ืฆืชื” ื–ื• ืฉื”ื™ื ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื”

The verse states with regard to a purchased field: โ€œAnd if he sanctifies to the Lord a field that he has bought, which is not of his ancestral fieldโ€ (Leviticus 27:22). The verse is referring specifically to a field that is not an ancestral field at the time of its consecration. This requirement excludes this field, as currently, after the death of the father, it is an ancestral field.

ืื™ืœื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉื” ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ืžืช ืื‘ ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื”ื•ื™ื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืื™ ืžืฉื•ื ืงืจื ืงืจื ืœื›ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื”ื•ื ื“ืืชื

The Gemara analyzes the baraita. That is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, whereas according to Rabbi Yehuda and according to Rabbi Shimon it is considered an ancestral field even if he consecrated the field and afterward his father dies. What is the reason for this opinion? If you suggest it is due to the verse, that cannot be, as the verse comes to teach the halakha that was stated in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, i.e., it is referring to a case where the father died before he consecrated the field, as Rabbi Meir explained.

ืืœื ืœืื• ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืื–ื™ืœ ื‘ืชืจ ืคื“ื™ื•ืŸ

Rather, is it not due to the fact that he follows the status of the field at the time of the redemption? Since the father died before the son redeemed the field it is considered an ancestral field in the possession of the Temple treasury. Similarly, if one first consecrates the trees and afterward the field, he should redeem them both together, since at the time of the redemption they are both consecrated. Since this ruling is not in accordance with the baraita that states that the trees and field are redeemed separately, evidently the baraita cannot be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืงืจื ืืฉื›ื—ื• ื•ื“ืจื•ืฉ

Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said that this source does not contradict Rav Hunaโ€™s claim that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. The reason is that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon do not, in fact, maintain that one follows the status of the field at the time of the redemption. Rather, they found a verse and expounded it.

ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืื ืืช ืฉื“ื” ืžืงื ืชื• ืืฉืจ ืœื ืื—ื–ืชื• ืžืื™ ืžืฉื“ื” ืฉื“ื” ืฉืื™ื ื” ืจืื•ื™ื” ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื”

Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak explains Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimonโ€™s reasoning: If so, that when one consecrated the field and his father died afterward, it is not considered an ancestral field, let the Merciful One write in the Torah: And if he sanctifies to the Lord a field that he has bought, which is not his ancestral, i.e., the verse could have omitted the repetition of the phrase โ€œof his field.โ€ What does the Torah mean by stressing โ€œof his fieldโ€? This teaches that only a field that is not fit to be an ancestral field at the time he consecrated it is redeemed for its value. But if he consecrated a field that he would inherit in the future, it is redeemed in the manner of an ancestral field.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ื˜ืจืฉื™ืŸ ืคื•ื“ืŸ ื‘ืฉื•ื•ื™ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื‘ื™ืช ื–ืจืข ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ื”ื ื™ ืœืื• ื‘ื ื™ ื–ืจื™ืขื” ื ื™ื ื”ื•

ยง Rav Pappa says: If one consecrated fields that are rocky [terashin] and unsuitable for planting, he redeems them by their value, not as ancestral fields. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? The Merciful One states that one redeems an area fit for sowing of a แธฅomer of barley seed for fifty silver shekels (see Leviticus 27:16), and these fields are not fit for sowing.

ืœื ื’ืืœืŸ ื™ื•ืฆืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืฉื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื›ืœ ื“ื”ื•

But if he did not redeem these fields before the Jubilee Year, they go to the priests in the Jubilee Year, like ancestral fields. What is the reason? The Merciful One states: โ€œAnd if he will not redeem the field, or if he has sold the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed anymore. But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy to the Lord, as a field devoted; it shall belong to the priestโ€ (Leviticus 27:20โ€“21). This indicates that any kind of ancestral field at all, regardless of quality, goes to the priests if it is not redeemed by the Jubilee Year.

ืžื›ืจ ื˜ืจืฉื™ืŸ ื ื’ืืœื™ืŸ ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉืชื™ ืฉื ื™ื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืžืกืคืจ ืฉื ื™ ืชื‘ื•ืื•ืช ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ื”ืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ื ื™ ืชื‘ื•ืื” ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืœื ื’ืืœืŸ ื—ื•ื–ืจืช ืœื‘ืขืœื™ื ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื•ืฉื‘ ืœืื—ื–ืชื• ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ื”ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื”ื™ื

Furthermore, Rav Pappa says: If one sold fields that are rocky and unsuitable for planting, they may be redeemed from the purchaser in even less than two years, despite the fact that normally land must be left in the hands of the purchaser for at least two years (see 29b), as derived from the plural term โ€œyears of the cropsโ€ cited below. What is the reason? The Merciful One states: โ€œAccording to the number of years after the Jubilee you shall buy from your neighbor, and according to the number of years of the crops he shall sell it to youโ€ (Leviticus 25:15), and these rocky fields are not fit for crops. But if he did not redeem them from the purchaser, they return to the owner in the Jubilee Year, like ancestral fields. What is the reason? The Merciful One states: โ€œThen let him count the years of its sale, and restore the extra to the man to whom he sold it; and it shall return to its ancestral heritageโ€ (Leviticus 25:27), and this rocky field is also part of his ancestral heritage.

ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืื™ืœื ื•ืช ืคื•ื“ื” ื‘ืฉื•ื•ื™ื”ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื‘ื™ืช ื–ืจืข ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ืœื ืื™ืœื ื•ืช ืœื ื’ืืœืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืฆืื™ืŸ ืœื›ื”ื ื™ื ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื•ื”ื™ื” ื”ืฉื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ืœื ืื™ืœื ื•ืช

Rav Pappa further says: If one consecrated trees in his ancestral field, he redeems them according to their value. What is the reason? The Merciful One states that one redeems an area fit for sowing of a แธฅomer of barley seed for fifty silver shekels. This is referring specifically to land fit for sowing grain, and not trees. Furthermore, if he did not redeem the trees, they do not go to the priests in the Jubilee Year, unlike an ancestral field. The reason is that the Merciful One states: โ€œBut the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy to the Lord, as a field devoted; it shall belong to the priestโ€ (Leviticus 27:21). This too is referring specifically to a field, and not trees.

ืžื›ืจ ืื™ืœื ื•ืช ืื™ืŸ ื ื’ืืœื™ืŸ ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉืชื™ ืฉื ื™ื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืฉื ื™ ืชื‘ื•ืื•ืช ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ื”ื ื™ ื‘ื ื™ ืชื‘ื•ืื•ืช ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืœื ื’ืืœืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ื–ืจืช ืœื‘ืขืœื™ื ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื•ืฉื‘ ืœืื—ื–ืชื• ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ืœื ืื™ืœื ื•ืช

Rav Pappa also says: If one sold trees of his ancestral field, they may not be redeemed from the purchaser if less than two years passed. What is the reason? The Merciful One states: โ€œAccording to the number of years after the Jubilee you shall buy it from your neighbor, and according to the number of years of the crops he shall sell it to youโ€ (Leviticus 25:15), and these trees are fit for crops, as they produce fruit. But if he did not redeem them from the purchaser, the trees do not return to the owner in the Jubilee Year. What is the reason? The Merciful One states: โ€œThen let him count the years of its sale, and restore the extra to the man to whom he sold it; and it shall return to its ancestral heritageโ€ (Leviticus 25:27). This includes only land, which remains forever, and not trees, which have a limited lifespan.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืื™ืœื ื•ืช ืคื•ื“ื” ื‘ืฉื•ื•ื™ืŸ ืืžืื™ ื•ืœื™ืงื“ืฉื• ืื’ื‘ ืืจืขื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ืœื™ืคืจืงื•ื” ืื’ื‘ ืืจืขื™ื™ื”ื•

The Gemara asks: The Master, i.e., Rav Pappa, says that if one consecrated trees in his ancestral field he redeems them according to their value. The Gemara asks: Why is that so? But let them be consecrated on account of their land and let them be redeemed on account of their land, according to the valuation of fifty silver shekels for each area required for sowing a kor of barley seed.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ืื™ืœื ื•ืช ืืงื“ื™ืฉ ืืจืขื ืœื ืืงื“ื™ืฉ ื•ื”ืืžืจื™ ื ื”ืจื“ืขื™ ืžืืŸ ื“ืžื–ื‘ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื“ืงืœื ืœื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ืงื ื™ ืœื™ื” ืžืฉื™ืคื•ืœื ื•ืขื“ ืชื”ื•ืžื ืœืื• ืžื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ืขืœื” ื‘ื‘ื ืžื—ืžืช ื˜ืขื ื”

And if you would say that he consecrated the trees and did not consecrate land, but didnโ€™t the Sages of Nehardeโ€™a say: If one sells a date palm to another, the purchaser acquires it from the bottom of the palm until the depths of the earth, i.e., including its land. The Gemara answers: Wasnโ€™t it stated with regard to this ruling that it is referring only to a case where the purchaser comes due to a specific claim that he purchased the land under the date palm. But if he does not claim to have explicitly purchased the land, the seller or the one who consecrates does not intend to include land with the date palm.

ืฉื“ื” ืžืงื ื” ื ื•ืชืŸ ืฉื•ื•ื™ื• ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ืžื›ืกืช ืžื” ื‘ื ืœืœืžื•ื“ ืœืคื™ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื–ืจืข ื—ืžืจ ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ื‘ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืฉืงืœ ื›ืกืฃ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืืฃ ืฉื“ื” ืžืงื ื” ื›ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืžื›ืกืช

ยง The mishna teaches: And with regard to a purchased field that one consecrates, he gives its value as redemption, a sum that can be more or less than fifty silver shekels for an area required for the sowing of a kor of barley seed. The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: โ€œThen the priest shall reckon for him the worth of your valuation until the Jubilee Year; and he shall give your valuation in that day, as a holy thing to the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 27:23). What does this word โ€œworthโ€ come to teach? Since it is stated with regard to an ancestral field: โ€œAn area fit for the sowing of a แธฅomer of barley seed is redeemed for fifty silver shekelsโ€ (Leviticus 27:16), one might have thought that a purchased field is also redeemed using this formula. Therefore, the verse states โ€œworth,โ€ which means the market value of the field.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื ืืžืจ ื›ืืŸ ื•ื—ืฉื‘ ื•ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ืœืŸ ื•ื—ืฉื‘ ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ืงืฆื•ื‘ ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ืงืฆื•ื‘

Rabbi Eliezer says: It is stated here, with regard to purchased fields: โ€œThen the priest shall reckon for him the worth of your valuation until the Jubilee Year; and he shall give your valuation in that day, as a holy thing to the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 27:23). And it is stated there, with regard to an ancestral field: โ€œBut if he sanctifies his field after the Jubilee, then the priest shall reckon for him the money according to the years that remain until the Jubilee Year, and it shall be deducted from your valuationโ€ (Leviticus 27:18). Just as there, in the case of an ancestral field, it is referring to a fixed amount, so too here, with regard to a purchased field, it means a fixed amount.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ืช ืœื”ื• ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉื•ื” ื•ืžืคืงื™ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืœื—ื•ืžืฉ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืœื™ืช ืœื”ื• ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉื•ื” ื•ืœื™ืช ืœื”ื• ืœื—ื•ืžืฉ

A dilemma was raised before the students: Do the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, accept that one derives the verbal analogy of โ€œshall reckon,โ€ but they use it to derive that one who redeems a consecrated purchased field must also add one-fifth? Or perhaps they do not accept the verbal analogy at all, and they do not hold that one who redeems a purchased field must add one-fifth?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ืœื™ืช ืœื”ื• ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉื•ื” ืžื“ื’ืœื™ ืจื—ืžื ื ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื’ื‘ื™ ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื•ื’ื‘ื™ ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ื‘ื™ืชื• ื”ื•ื• ืœื™ื” ืฉื ื™ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื‘ืื™ืŸ ื›ืื—ื“ ื•ื›ืœ ืฉื ื™ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื‘ืื™ืŸ ื›ืื—ื“ ืื™ืŸ ืžืœืžื“ื™ืŸ

Rava said: It is reasonable to assume that the Rabbis do not accept the verbal analogy. The reasoning is as follows: From the fact that the Merciful One revealed in the Torah that one must add one-fifth in the case of one who redeems an ancestral field and in the case of one who consecrates his house, these are two verses that come as one, i.e., to teach the same matter. And any two verses that come as one do not teach their common aspect, in this case, adding one-fifth, to apply to other cases. Therefore, it can be assumed that the Rabbis maintain that one who redeems his purchased field does not have to pay an additional fifth.

ื•ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืœืžื“ื™ืŸ ืžื“ื’ืœื™ ืจื—ืžื ื ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื‘ืžืขืฉืจ ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ื˜ื”ื•ืจื” ื•ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ื˜ืžืื” ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ื˜ื•ื‘ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžืœืžื“ื™ืŸ

Rava continues: And even according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do teach their common aspect, from the fact that the Merciful One revealed in the Torah that one must add one-fifth when he redeems his second tithe, and when he redeems his kosher animal that he consecrated and became blemished, and when he redeems his non-kosher animal that he consecrated, these are many verses that come at one, and everyone agrees that multiple verses do not teach their common aspect to other cases.

ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ื•ืœื ืžื˜ืขืžื™ื” ืชื ื™ื ื‘ืžื›ืกืช ื”ืขืจื›ืš ื”ืงื™ืฉื• ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืœืขืจื›ื™ืŸ ืžื” ืขืจื›ื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืืฃ ืฉื“ื” ืžืงื ื” ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the ruling of Rava, but not for his reason. It is taught in a baraita: โ€œThen the priest shall reckon for him the worth of your valuation until the Jubilee Year; and he shall give your valuation in that day, as a holy thing to the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 27:23). The verse juxtaposes this estimation to fixed valuations. Just as with regard to fixed valuations one does not add one-fifth, so too when redeeming a purchased field one does not add one-fifth.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื‘ืฉื•ืจ ื”ืžื•ืขื“ ืฉื”ืžื™ืช ืืช ื”ืขื‘ื“ ืœื”ืงืœ ื•ืœื”ื—ืžื™ืจ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืื—ื“ ืฉื”ืžื™ืช ืืช ื”ื ืื” ืฉื‘ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ื•ืืช ื”ื›ืขื•ืจ ืฉื‘ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ื ื•ืชืŸ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ืกืœืข ื”ืžื™ืช ื‘ืŸ ื—ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืฉื•ื•ื™ื• ื—ื‘ืœ ื‘ื–ื” ื•ื‘ื–ื” ื ื•ืชืŸ ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื

MISHNA: There are halakhot with regard to a forewarned ox that killed a Canaanite slave that are lenient and others that are stringent; how so? Both in the case of an ox that killed the most attractive among the slaves, whose value is great, and likewise in the case of one that killed the most unsightly among the slaves, whose value is minimal, its owner gives payment of thirty sela, the fine stated in the Torah (Exodus 21:32), to the owner of the slave. If the ox killed a freeman, its owner gives his price as payment to his heirs. This sum can be more or less than thirty shekels. If the ox injured this slave or that freeman, he gives payment of the full cost of the damage as compensation.

ื’ืžืณ ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืชื ืœื ืœื™ืžื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ืชื ืฉื—ื‘ืœ ื‘ืื“ื ืžืฉืœื ื‘ืžื•ืชืจ ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื

GEMARA: As the mishna first specifies that it is speaking of a forewarned ox, this indicates that with regard to a forewarned ox that injured a freeman, yes, one is liable for full payment, but with regard to an innocuous ox that injured a freeman one does not make full restitution, but pays only half the value of the victim. The Gemara asks: Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. As we learned in a mishna (Bava Kamma 33a) that Rabbi Akiva says: The owner of an innocuous ox that injured a person also pays the full cost of the damage with regard to the difference between the damage the person inflicted on the ox and the damage the ox inflicted on the person. Evidently, Rabbi Akiva does not distinguish between an innocuous and a forewarned ox in a case where an ox injured a person.

ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื”ื•ื ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื“ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื ื ืžื™ ื•ืื™ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืงื ื‘ืขื™ ืœืžืชื ื ืกื™ืคื ื”ืžื™ืช ืขื‘ื“ ื”ืžื™ืช ื‘ืŸ ื—ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ ื”ื•ื ื“ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ื‘ืชื ืœื ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ืžืฉื•ื ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ืžื•ืขื“

The Gemara answers: You may even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, and explain it as follows: The same is true that even the owner of an innocuous ox must make full restitution, but since the tanna wants to teach in the first part of the latter clause of the mishna: An ox that killed a slave and an ox that killed a freeman, which you find in the case of forewarned ox but in the case of an innocuous ox you do not find it, as the penalty for killing a person does not apply to an innocuous ox, it is for this reason that the mishna teaches only the case of a forewarned ox.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื‘ืื•ื ืก ื•ื‘ืžืคืชื” ืœื”ืงืœ ื•ืœื”ื—ืžื™ืจ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืื—ื“ ืฉืื ืก ื•ืคื™ืชื” ืืช ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืฉื‘ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื•ืืช ื”ืงื˜ื ื” ืฉื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื ื•ืชืŸ ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืกืœืขื™ื ื•ื”ื‘ื•ืฉืช ื•ื”ืคื’ื ื”ื›ืœ ืœืคื™ ื”ืžื‘ื™ื™ืฉ ื•ื”ืžืชื‘ื™ื™ืฉ

MISHNA: There are halakhot with regard to a rapist and with regard to a seducer that are lenient and others that are stringent; how so? Both one who raped or seduced a young woman who is the most prominent in the priesthood and one who raped or seduced a young woman who is the lowliest among the Israelites gives the payment of fifty sela, the fine stated in the Torah (see Deuteronomy 22:29). And the payments for humiliation and for degradation resulting from being raped or seduced are assessed differentially; it is all based on the one who humiliates and the one who is humiliated.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืื™ ืื™ืžื ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืกืœืขื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ืžื›ืœ ืžื™ืœื™

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why must the rapist or seducer also pay for her humiliation and degradation? One can say that the Merciful One states in the verse: โ€œThen the man that lay with her shall give to the young womanโ€™s father fifty shekels of silverโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:29), that he is to pay a total of fifty sela for all matters associated with this act, i.e., the fine, degradation, humiliation, and pain.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื–ืขื™ืจื ื™ืืžืจื• ื‘ืขืœ ื‘ืช ืžืœื›ื™ื ื—ืžืฉื™ื ื‘ืขืœ ื‘ืช ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ื•ืช ื—ืžืฉื™ื

Rav Zeira says: It cannot be that he pays a total of only fifty sela, as people will say: Does it make sense that one who engaged in forced intercourse with, i.e., raped, a daughter of kings pays a sum of fifty sela, when she suffers great humiliation, and one who engaged in forced intercourse with the daughter of ordinary people [hedyotot] also pays fifty sela?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื’ื‘ื™ ืขื‘ื“ ื ืžื™ ื™ืืžืจื• ืขื‘ื“ ื ื•ืงื‘ ืžืจื’ืœื™ืช ืฉืœืฉื™ื ืขื‘ื“ ืขื•ืฉื” ืžืขืฉื” ืžื—ื˜ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื–ืขื™ืจื

Abaye said to Rav Zeira: If so, the same claim can be applied with regard to a slave killed by an ox. People will also say: Does it make sense that a slave who pierces pearls [margalit] is worth thirty sela, and a slave who performs needlecraft is also worth thirty sela? Nevertheless, the mishna clearly indicates that there is no distinction between the two slaves, as the Torah states a fixed payment. Rather, Rav Zeira says that there is a different proof:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Arakhin 14

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Arakhin 14

ืžืœืชื ืื’ื‘ ืื•ืจื—ื™ื” ืงืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื›ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืกื•ืจ ืœืื“ื ืฉื™ืืžืจ ื›ืžื” ื ืื” ื’ื•ื™ ื–ื”

by not mentioning gentiles, the mishna teaches us another matter in passing, in accordance with the statement that Rav Yehuda says that Rav says. As Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: It is prohibited for a person to say: How beautiful is this gentile.

ื•ืœื™ืชื ื™ ืืช ื”ื ืื” ืฉื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ืืช ื”ื›ืขื•ืจ ืฉื‘ื’ื•ื™ื ื‘ื—ื“ ืื•ืžื” ืงืžื™ื™ืจื™ ื‘ืชืจื™ ืื•ืžื” ืœื ืžื™ื™ืจื™

The Gemara asks: But if this is the only reason that a gentile is not mentioned, let the mishna teach: In the case of one who took a vow of valuation to donate the fixed value of the most attractive among the Jewish people and the most unsightly among the gentiles, he gives the fixed payment of fifty sela to the Temple treasury. The Gemara answers: The tanna prefers to deal with one nation, i.e., Jews, and does not wish to deal with two nations, Jews and gentiles.

ื•ืœื ื•ื”ื ืงืชื ื™ ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืฉื‘ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื•ืืช ื”ืงื˜ื ื” ืฉื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื”ืชื ื—ื“ ืื•ืžื” ื”ื•ื ืืœื ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ื”ื•ื ื“ืงื“ื™ืฉื™ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื˜ืคื™

The Gemara challenges this answer: And does the mishna not deal with two nations? But isnโ€™t it taught in a mishna (14b): One who raped or seduced a young woman, whether she is the most prominent in the priesthood or the lowliest among the Israelites, gives the payment of fifty sela, the fine stated in the Torah. Priests and Israelites are two distinct groups of people, analogous to Jews and gentiles. The Gemara answers: In that mishna there it is one nation, as although there are two groups they are both part of the Jewish people. It is only that the priests have greater sanctity than Israelites.

ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืื™ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืงื ื‘ืขื™ ืœืžืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื“ื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื”ื•ื ื“ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ื‘ื’ื•ื™ ืœื ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ื“ืœืื• ื‘ื ื™ ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืžืฉื•ื ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ืœื” ื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ

And if you wish, say instead that since the mishna wants to teach the case of an ancestral field in the latter clause, which you find in the case of Jews, but you do not find with regard to gentiles, as they are unfit to have ancestral land in Eretz Yisrael, it is due to this reason that the mishna teaches only cases that involve the Jewish people.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื‘ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ืœื”ืงืœ ื•ืœื”ื—ืžื™ืจ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืื—ื“ ื”ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ื‘ื—ื•ืœืช ื”ืžื—ื•ื– ื•ืื—ื“ ื”ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ื‘ืคืจื“ื™ืกื•ืช ืกื‘ืกื˜ื™ ื ื•ืชืŸ ื–ืจืข ื—ื•ืžืจ ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ื‘ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืฉืงืœ ื›ืกืฃ ื•ื‘ืฉื“ื” ืžืงื ื” ื ื•ืชืŸ ืืช ืฉื•ื•ื™ื•

MISHNA: There are halakhot with regard to an ancestral field that are lenient and others that are stringent. How so? Both one who consecrates an ancestral field in the low-quality sands of the areas surrounding the city and one who consecrates the high-quality orchards of Sebastia gives a redemption payment of fifty silver shekels for every area that he consecrated that is fit for sowing a kor of barley (Leviticus 27:16). And with regard to a purchased field that one consecrates, he gives its value as redemption, a sum that can be more or less than fifty shekels for every area required for sowing one kor of barley.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืื—ื“ ืฉื“ื” ืžืงื ื” ื•ืื—ื“ ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ืžื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ืœืฉื“ื” ืžืงื ื” ืฉื‘ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื”ื•ื ื ื•ืชืŸ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื•ื‘ืฉื“ื” ืžืงื ื” ืื™ื ื• ื ื•ืชืŸ ื—ื•ืžืฉ

Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to both a purchased field and an ancestral field, one gives a redemption payment of fifty silver shekels for every area required for sowing a kor of barley that he consecrated. What, then, is the difference between an ancestral field and a purchased field? The difference is that in the case of an ancestral field one gives an additional payment of one-fifth, but in the case of a purchased field one does not give an additional payment of one-fifth.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืฉื“ื” ืžืœื™ืื” ืื™ืœื ื•ืช ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืคื•ื“ืŸ ืคื•ื“ื” ืื™ืœื ื•ืช ื‘ืฉื•ื•ื™ืŸ ื•ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื•ืคื•ื“ื” ืงืจืงืข ื‘ื™ืช ื–ืจืข ื—ื•ืžืจ ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ื‘ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืฉืงืœ ื›ืกืฃ ืืœืžื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืื“ื ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ื‘ืขื™ืŸ ื™ืคื” ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ

GEMARA: Rav Huna says: In a case where one consecrated a field full of trees, when he redeems the trees and field, he redeems the trees according to their value, and then redeems the land according to the fixed formula, by which an area required for the sowing of a kor of barley seed is redeemed for fifty silver shekels. The Gemara notes that evidently Rav Huna holds that when a person consecrates, he consecrates generously. In this case he consecrated the trees and the land separately, so that he would have to redeem them each separately, rather than the trees being redeemed as part of the land.

ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืœืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืื—ื“ ื”ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ื‘ื—ื•ืœืช ื”ืžื—ื•ื– ื•ืื—ื“ ื”ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ื‘ืคืจื“ื™ืกื•ืช ืกื‘ืกื˜ื™ ื ื•ืชืŸ ื‘ื™ืช ื–ืจืข ื—ื•ืžืจ ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ื‘ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืฉืงืœ ื›ืกืฃ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจืื•ื™ื” ืœืคืจื“ื™ืกื•ืช ืงืืžื™ื ื

Rav Naแธฅman raised an objection to Rav Huna from the mishna: Both one who consecrates an ancestral field in the low-quality sands of the areas surrounding the city and one who consecrates the high-quality orchards of Sebastia gives a redemption payment of fifty silver shekels for every area required for sowing a kor of barley that he consecrated. This indicates that when one consecrates orchards he does not redeem the land and the trees separately. Rav Huna said to Rav Naแธฅman: The mishna is speaking of land that is suitable for orchards but does not actually have trees planted on it.

ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ื‘ื™ืช ื–ืจืข ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ื‘ื™ืช ื–ืจืข ืฉื“ื” ื’ืคื ื™ื ื•ืฉื“ื” ืงื ื™ื ื•ืฉื“ื” ืื™ืœื ื•ืช ืžื ื™ืŸ

Rav Naแธฅman raised another objection to Rav Huna from a baraita: When discussing a consecrated ancestral field the Torah states: โ€œAn area fit for sowingโ€ (Leviticus 27:16). I have derived only an area fit for sowing; from where do I derive that the same is true for a field of vines and a field of reeds and a field of trees?

ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉื“ื” ืžื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืคื•ื“ื” ื•ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื•ืคื•ื“ื”

The verse states: โ€œAnd if a man shall consecrate to the Lord part of the field of his possession, then your valuation shall be according to an area fit for sowing; the sowing of a แธฅomer of barley shall be valued at fifty silver shekelsโ€ (Leviticus 27:16). The word โ€œfieldโ€ teaches that this halakha applies in any case, regardless of the type of field. It can be inferred from here that if one consecrates an orchard, the redemption of the trees is not valued separately from the land. Rav Huna said to Rav Naแธฅman: Here too, the baraita means that he first redeems the trees and afterward redeems the field, according to the formula of the Torah.

ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืฉืœืฉื” ืื™ืœื ื•ืช ืžืžื˜ืข ืขืฉืจื” ืœื‘ื™ืช ืกืื” ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืืช ื”ืงืจืงืข ื•ืืช ื”ืื™ืœื ื•ืช ืฉื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ื ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืคื•ื“ื” ืคื•ื“ื” ื‘ื™ืช ื–ืจืข ื—ื•ืžืจ ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ื‘ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืฉืงืœ ื›ืกืฃ

Rav Naแธฅman again raised an objection to Rav Huna from a baraita: If one consecrated three trees in a field where ten trees are planted in an area required for sowing one seโ€™a of seed [beit seโ€™a], he has consecrated not only those trees, but also the land and the young trees between them. Therefore, if this is his ancestral field, when he redeems it, he redeems the land and everything contained within it according to the standard rate established by the Torah, where an area required for the sowing of a kor of barley seed is redeemed for fifty silver shekels.

ืคื—ื•ืช ืžื™ื›ืŸ ืื• ื™ืชืจ ืขืœ ื›ืŸ ืื• ืฉื”ืงื“ื™ืฉืŸ ื‘ื–ื” ืื—ืจ ื–ื” ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืœื ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืœื ืืช ื”ืงืจืงืข ื•ืœื ืืช ื”ืื™ืœื ื•ืช ืฉื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ื

But if the ratio of land to trees was less than that, i.e., the trees were planted more densely, or if the ratio of land to trees was more than that, i.e., the trees were planted less densely, or if he consecrated each of the trees separately, one after the other, this person has consecrated neither the land nor the young trees between them. Therefore, when he redeems, he redeems the trees in accordance with their worth.

ื•ืœื ืขื•ื“ ืืœื ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืื™ืœื ื•ืชื™ื• ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืงืจืงืข ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืคื•ื“ื” ืคื•ื“ื” ืืช ื”ืื™ืœื ื•ืช ื‘ืฉื•ื•ื™ื”ืŸ ื•ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื•ืคื•ื“ื” ืงืจืงืข ื‘ื™ืช ื–ืจืข ื—ื•ืžืจ ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ื‘ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืฉืงืœ ื›ืกืฃ

And moreover, even if one consecrated its trees when they are planted more densely, or less densely, or one after the other, and then afterward he consecrated the land, so that at this point everything belongs to the Temple treasury, when he redeems them, he redeems the trees separately in accordance with their worth, and afterward he redeems the land according to the standard rate, where an area required for the sowing of a แธฅomer, i.e., a kor, of barley seed is redeemed for fifty silver shekels.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืคื•ื“ื” ื•ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื•ืคื•ื“ื” ื”ื ืžื“ืกื™ืคื ืคื•ื“ื” ื•ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื•ืคื•ื“ื” ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืจื™ืฉื ืœื

The Gemara explains the objection: And if you would say that here too, in the first part of the baraita, it means that he redeems the field and afterward redeems the trees, from the fact that the latter clause of the baraita states that he redeems and afterward redeems, by inference the first clause is not referring to a case where he redeems the field and afterward redeems the trees.

ืืœื ื”ื ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ื‘ืขื™ืŸ ืจืขื” ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ื“ืชื ื™ื ื”ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ืืช ื”ืฉื“ื” ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืืช ื›ื•ืœื” ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืืœื ื—ืจื•ื‘ ื”ืžื•ืจื›ื‘ ื•ืกื“ืŸ ื”ืฉืงืžื”

Rather, in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says that when one consecrates, he consecrates sparingly. As it is taught in a baraita: One who consecrates a field has consecrated all of it. Rabbi Shimon says: He only consecrated a grafted carob tree and a sycamore stump.

ืื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ื•ืœื ืขื•ื“ ืืœื ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืื™ืœื ื•ืชื™ื• ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืงืจืงืข ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืคื•ื“ื” ืคื•ื“ื” ืืช ื”ืื™ืœื ื•ืช ื‘ืฉื•ื•ื™ื”ืŸ ื•ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื•ืคื•ื“ื” ื‘ื™ืช ื–ืจืข ื—ื•ืžืจ ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ื‘ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืฉืงืœ ื›ืกืฃ

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, say the latter clause: And moreover, even if one consecrates its trees and then afterward he consecrated the land, when he redeems them he redeems the trees separately in accordance with their worth, and afterward he redeems the land according to the standard rate, where an area required for the sowing of a แธฅomer of barley seed is redeemed for fifty silver shekels.

ื•ืื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืœื™ื–ื™ืœ ื‘ืชืจ ืคื“ื™ื•ืŸ ื•ืœื™ืคืจืงื• ืื’ื‘ ืืจืขื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ื”ื ืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื“ืื–ื™ืœ ื‘ืชืจ ืคื“ื™ื•ืŸ

And if the baraita is according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, let one follow the status of the field at the time of its redemption, and let the trees be redeemed along with their land, as at the time of its redemption both the trees and the land are consecrated. As we have heard that Rabbi Shimon follows the time of the redemption, i.e., he determines the price at which a field is redeemed based on the time it is being redeemed.

ื“ืชื ื™ื ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืœื•ืงื— ืฉื“ื” ืžืื‘ื™ื• ื•ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉื” ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ืžืช ืื‘ื™ื• ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉืชื”ื ืœืคื ื™ื• ื›ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื ืืช ืฉื“ื” ืžืงื ืชื• ืืฉืจ ืœื ืžืฉื“ื” ืื—ื–ืชื•

As it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to one who purchases a field from his father and consecrated it, and afterward his father dies, which means that the field would now be his as an inheritance, from where is it derived that it should be considered before him as an ancestral field, rather than a field that he purchased, with respect to its redemption? The verse states with regard to a field that was purchased: โ€œAnd if he sanctifies to the Lord a field that he has bought, which is not of his ancestral fieldsโ€ (Leviticus 27:22).

ืฉื“ื” ืฉืื™ื ื” ืจืื•ื™ื” ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื™ืฆืชื” ื–ื• ืฉืจืื•ื™ื” ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ

The verse speaks specifically of a field that is not fit at the time of its consecration to be an ancestral field, i.e., one that he could never have inherited in the future. This specification excludes this field that was fit to be an ancestral field from this halakha, since eventually it would have become his through inheritance, even had he not purchased it. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon.

ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืœื•ืงื— ืฉื“ื” ืžืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืžืช ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉื” ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉืชื”ื ืœืคื ื™ื• ื›ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื”

The baraita continues: Rabbi Meir learns a different halakha from this verse and says: From where is it derived that in a case of one who purchases a field from his father and his father dies, and only afterward he consecrated the field, from where is it derived that it should be considered before him like an ancestral field?

ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื ืืช ืฉื“ื” ืžืงื ืชื• ืืฉืจ ืœื ืžืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ืชื• ืฉื“ื” ืฉืื™ื ื” ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื™ืฆืชื” ื–ื• ืฉื”ื™ื ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื”

The verse states with regard to a purchased field: โ€œAnd if he sanctifies to the Lord a field that he has bought, which is not of his ancestral fieldโ€ (Leviticus 27:22). The verse is referring specifically to a field that is not an ancestral field at the time of its consecration. This requirement excludes this field, as currently, after the death of the father, it is an ancestral field.

ืื™ืœื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉื” ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ืžืช ืื‘ ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื”ื•ื™ื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืื™ ืžืฉื•ื ืงืจื ืงืจื ืœื›ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื”ื•ื ื“ืืชื

The Gemara analyzes the baraita. That is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, whereas according to Rabbi Yehuda and according to Rabbi Shimon it is considered an ancestral field even if he consecrated the field and afterward his father dies. What is the reason for this opinion? If you suggest it is due to the verse, that cannot be, as the verse comes to teach the halakha that was stated in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, i.e., it is referring to a case where the father died before he consecrated the field, as Rabbi Meir explained.

ืืœื ืœืื• ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืื–ื™ืœ ื‘ืชืจ ืคื“ื™ื•ืŸ

Rather, is it not due to the fact that he follows the status of the field at the time of the redemption? Since the father died before the son redeemed the field it is considered an ancestral field in the possession of the Temple treasury. Similarly, if one first consecrates the trees and afterward the field, he should redeem them both together, since at the time of the redemption they are both consecrated. Since this ruling is not in accordance with the baraita that states that the trees and field are redeemed separately, evidently the baraita cannot be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืงืจื ืืฉื›ื—ื• ื•ื“ืจื•ืฉ

Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said that this source does not contradict Rav Hunaโ€™s claim that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. The reason is that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon do not, in fact, maintain that one follows the status of the field at the time of the redemption. Rather, they found a verse and expounded it.

ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืื ืืช ืฉื“ื” ืžืงื ืชื• ืืฉืจ ืœื ืื—ื–ืชื• ืžืื™ ืžืฉื“ื” ืฉื“ื” ืฉืื™ื ื” ืจืื•ื™ื” ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื”

Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak explains Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimonโ€™s reasoning: If so, that when one consecrated the field and his father died afterward, it is not considered an ancestral field, let the Merciful One write in the Torah: And if he sanctifies to the Lord a field that he has bought, which is not his ancestral, i.e., the verse could have omitted the repetition of the phrase โ€œof his field.โ€ What does the Torah mean by stressing โ€œof his fieldโ€? This teaches that only a field that is not fit to be an ancestral field at the time he consecrated it is redeemed for its value. But if he consecrated a field that he would inherit in the future, it is redeemed in the manner of an ancestral field.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ื˜ืจืฉื™ืŸ ืคื•ื“ืŸ ื‘ืฉื•ื•ื™ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื‘ื™ืช ื–ืจืข ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ื”ื ื™ ืœืื• ื‘ื ื™ ื–ืจื™ืขื” ื ื™ื ื”ื•

ยง Rav Pappa says: If one consecrated fields that are rocky [terashin] and unsuitable for planting, he redeems them by their value, not as ancestral fields. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? The Merciful One states that one redeems an area fit for sowing of a แธฅomer of barley seed for fifty silver shekels (see Leviticus 27:16), and these fields are not fit for sowing.

ืœื ื’ืืœืŸ ื™ื•ืฆืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืฉื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื›ืœ ื“ื”ื•

But if he did not redeem these fields before the Jubilee Year, they go to the priests in the Jubilee Year, like ancestral fields. What is the reason? The Merciful One states: โ€œAnd if he will not redeem the field, or if he has sold the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed anymore. But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy to the Lord, as a field devoted; it shall belong to the priestโ€ (Leviticus 27:20โ€“21). This indicates that any kind of ancestral field at all, regardless of quality, goes to the priests if it is not redeemed by the Jubilee Year.

ืžื›ืจ ื˜ืจืฉื™ืŸ ื ื’ืืœื™ืŸ ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉืชื™ ืฉื ื™ื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืžืกืคืจ ืฉื ื™ ืชื‘ื•ืื•ืช ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ื”ืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ื ื™ ืชื‘ื•ืื” ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืœื ื’ืืœืŸ ื—ื•ื–ืจืช ืœื‘ืขืœื™ื ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื•ืฉื‘ ืœืื—ื–ืชื• ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ื”ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื”ื™ื

Furthermore, Rav Pappa says: If one sold fields that are rocky and unsuitable for planting, they may be redeemed from the purchaser in even less than two years, despite the fact that normally land must be left in the hands of the purchaser for at least two years (see 29b), as derived from the plural term โ€œyears of the cropsโ€ cited below. What is the reason? The Merciful One states: โ€œAccording to the number of years after the Jubilee you shall buy from your neighbor, and according to the number of years of the crops he shall sell it to youโ€ (Leviticus 25:15), and these rocky fields are not fit for crops. But if he did not redeem them from the purchaser, they return to the owner in the Jubilee Year, like ancestral fields. What is the reason? The Merciful One states: โ€œThen let him count the years of its sale, and restore the extra to the man to whom he sold it; and it shall return to its ancestral heritageโ€ (Leviticus 25:27), and this rocky field is also part of his ancestral heritage.

ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืื™ืœื ื•ืช ืคื•ื“ื” ื‘ืฉื•ื•ื™ื”ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื‘ื™ืช ื–ืจืข ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ืœื ืื™ืœื ื•ืช ืœื ื’ืืœืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืฆืื™ืŸ ืœื›ื”ื ื™ื ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื•ื”ื™ื” ื”ืฉื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ืœื ืื™ืœื ื•ืช

Rav Pappa further says: If one consecrated trees in his ancestral field, he redeems them according to their value. What is the reason? The Merciful One states that one redeems an area fit for sowing of a แธฅomer of barley seed for fifty silver shekels. This is referring specifically to land fit for sowing grain, and not trees. Furthermore, if he did not redeem the trees, they do not go to the priests in the Jubilee Year, unlike an ancestral field. The reason is that the Merciful One states: โ€œBut the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy to the Lord, as a field devoted; it shall belong to the priestโ€ (Leviticus 27:21). This too is referring specifically to a field, and not trees.

ืžื›ืจ ืื™ืœื ื•ืช ืื™ืŸ ื ื’ืืœื™ืŸ ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉืชื™ ืฉื ื™ื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืฉื ื™ ืชื‘ื•ืื•ืช ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ื”ื ื™ ื‘ื ื™ ืชื‘ื•ืื•ืช ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืœื ื’ืืœืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ื–ืจืช ืœื‘ืขืœื™ื ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื•ืฉื‘ ืœืื—ื–ืชื• ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ืœื ืื™ืœื ื•ืช

Rav Pappa also says: If one sold trees of his ancestral field, they may not be redeemed from the purchaser if less than two years passed. What is the reason? The Merciful One states: โ€œAccording to the number of years after the Jubilee you shall buy it from your neighbor, and according to the number of years of the crops he shall sell it to youโ€ (Leviticus 25:15), and these trees are fit for crops, as they produce fruit. But if he did not redeem them from the purchaser, the trees do not return to the owner in the Jubilee Year. What is the reason? The Merciful One states: โ€œThen let him count the years of its sale, and restore the extra to the man to whom he sold it; and it shall return to its ancestral heritageโ€ (Leviticus 25:27). This includes only land, which remains forever, and not trees, which have a limited lifespan.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืื™ืœื ื•ืช ืคื•ื“ื” ื‘ืฉื•ื•ื™ืŸ ืืžืื™ ื•ืœื™ืงื“ืฉื• ืื’ื‘ ืืจืขื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ืœื™ืคืจืงื•ื” ืื’ื‘ ืืจืขื™ื™ื”ื•

The Gemara asks: The Master, i.e., Rav Pappa, says that if one consecrated trees in his ancestral field he redeems them according to their value. The Gemara asks: Why is that so? But let them be consecrated on account of their land and let them be redeemed on account of their land, according to the valuation of fifty silver shekels for each area required for sowing a kor of barley seed.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ืื™ืœื ื•ืช ืืงื“ื™ืฉ ืืจืขื ืœื ืืงื“ื™ืฉ ื•ื”ืืžืจื™ ื ื”ืจื“ืขื™ ืžืืŸ ื“ืžื–ื‘ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื“ืงืœื ืœื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ืงื ื™ ืœื™ื” ืžืฉื™ืคื•ืœื ื•ืขื“ ืชื”ื•ืžื ืœืื• ืžื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ืขืœื” ื‘ื‘ื ืžื—ืžืช ื˜ืขื ื”

And if you would say that he consecrated the trees and did not consecrate land, but didnโ€™t the Sages of Nehardeโ€™a say: If one sells a date palm to another, the purchaser acquires it from the bottom of the palm until the depths of the earth, i.e., including its land. The Gemara answers: Wasnโ€™t it stated with regard to this ruling that it is referring only to a case where the purchaser comes due to a specific claim that he purchased the land under the date palm. But if he does not claim to have explicitly purchased the land, the seller or the one who consecrates does not intend to include land with the date palm.

ืฉื“ื” ืžืงื ื” ื ื•ืชืŸ ืฉื•ื•ื™ื• ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ืžื›ืกืช ืžื” ื‘ื ืœืœืžื•ื“ ืœืคื™ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื–ืจืข ื—ืžืจ ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ื‘ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืฉืงืœ ื›ืกืฃ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืืฃ ืฉื“ื” ืžืงื ื” ื›ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืžื›ืกืช

ยง The mishna teaches: And with regard to a purchased field that one consecrates, he gives its value as redemption, a sum that can be more or less than fifty silver shekels for an area required for the sowing of a kor of barley seed. The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: โ€œThen the priest shall reckon for him the worth of your valuation until the Jubilee Year; and he shall give your valuation in that day, as a holy thing to the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 27:23). What does this word โ€œworthโ€ come to teach? Since it is stated with regard to an ancestral field: โ€œAn area fit for the sowing of a แธฅomer of barley seed is redeemed for fifty silver shekelsโ€ (Leviticus 27:16), one might have thought that a purchased field is also redeemed using this formula. Therefore, the verse states โ€œworth,โ€ which means the market value of the field.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื ืืžืจ ื›ืืŸ ื•ื—ืฉื‘ ื•ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ืœืŸ ื•ื—ืฉื‘ ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ืงืฆื•ื‘ ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ืงืฆื•ื‘

Rabbi Eliezer says: It is stated here, with regard to purchased fields: โ€œThen the priest shall reckon for him the worth of your valuation until the Jubilee Year; and he shall give your valuation in that day, as a holy thing to the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 27:23). And it is stated there, with regard to an ancestral field: โ€œBut if he sanctifies his field after the Jubilee, then the priest shall reckon for him the money according to the years that remain until the Jubilee Year, and it shall be deducted from your valuationโ€ (Leviticus 27:18). Just as there, in the case of an ancestral field, it is referring to a fixed amount, so too here, with regard to a purchased field, it means a fixed amount.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ืช ืœื”ื• ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉื•ื” ื•ืžืคืงื™ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืœื—ื•ืžืฉ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืœื™ืช ืœื”ื• ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉื•ื” ื•ืœื™ืช ืœื”ื• ืœื—ื•ืžืฉ

A dilemma was raised before the students: Do the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, accept that one derives the verbal analogy of โ€œshall reckon,โ€ but they use it to derive that one who redeems a consecrated purchased field must also add one-fifth? Or perhaps they do not accept the verbal analogy at all, and they do not hold that one who redeems a purchased field must add one-fifth?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ืœื™ืช ืœื”ื• ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉื•ื” ืžื“ื’ืœื™ ืจื—ืžื ื ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื’ื‘ื™ ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื•ื’ื‘ื™ ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ื‘ื™ืชื• ื”ื•ื• ืœื™ื” ืฉื ื™ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื‘ืื™ืŸ ื›ืื—ื“ ื•ื›ืœ ืฉื ื™ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื‘ืื™ืŸ ื›ืื—ื“ ืื™ืŸ ืžืœืžื“ื™ืŸ

Rava said: It is reasonable to assume that the Rabbis do not accept the verbal analogy. The reasoning is as follows: From the fact that the Merciful One revealed in the Torah that one must add one-fifth in the case of one who redeems an ancestral field and in the case of one who consecrates his house, these are two verses that come as one, i.e., to teach the same matter. And any two verses that come as one do not teach their common aspect, in this case, adding one-fifth, to apply to other cases. Therefore, it can be assumed that the Rabbis maintain that one who redeems his purchased field does not have to pay an additional fifth.

ื•ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืœืžื“ื™ืŸ ืžื“ื’ืœื™ ืจื—ืžื ื ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื‘ืžืขืฉืจ ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ื˜ื”ื•ืจื” ื•ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ื˜ืžืื” ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ื˜ื•ื‘ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžืœืžื“ื™ืŸ

Rava continues: And even according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do teach their common aspect, from the fact that the Merciful One revealed in the Torah that one must add one-fifth when he redeems his second tithe, and when he redeems his kosher animal that he consecrated and became blemished, and when he redeems his non-kosher animal that he consecrated, these are many verses that come at one, and everyone agrees that multiple verses do not teach their common aspect to other cases.

ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ื•ืœื ืžื˜ืขืžื™ื” ืชื ื™ื ื‘ืžื›ืกืช ื”ืขืจื›ืš ื”ืงื™ืฉื• ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืœืขืจื›ื™ืŸ ืžื” ืขืจื›ื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืืฃ ืฉื“ื” ืžืงื ื” ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the ruling of Rava, but not for his reason. It is taught in a baraita: โ€œThen the priest shall reckon for him the worth of your valuation until the Jubilee Year; and he shall give your valuation in that day, as a holy thing to the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 27:23). The verse juxtaposes this estimation to fixed valuations. Just as with regard to fixed valuations one does not add one-fifth, so too when redeeming a purchased field one does not add one-fifth.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื‘ืฉื•ืจ ื”ืžื•ืขื“ ืฉื”ืžื™ืช ืืช ื”ืขื‘ื“ ืœื”ืงืœ ื•ืœื”ื—ืžื™ืจ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืื—ื“ ืฉื”ืžื™ืช ืืช ื”ื ืื” ืฉื‘ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ื•ืืช ื”ื›ืขื•ืจ ืฉื‘ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ื ื•ืชืŸ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ืกืœืข ื”ืžื™ืช ื‘ืŸ ื—ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืฉื•ื•ื™ื• ื—ื‘ืœ ื‘ื–ื” ื•ื‘ื–ื” ื ื•ืชืŸ ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื

MISHNA: There are halakhot with regard to a forewarned ox that killed a Canaanite slave that are lenient and others that are stringent; how so? Both in the case of an ox that killed the most attractive among the slaves, whose value is great, and likewise in the case of one that killed the most unsightly among the slaves, whose value is minimal, its owner gives payment of thirty sela, the fine stated in the Torah (Exodus 21:32), to the owner of the slave. If the ox killed a freeman, its owner gives his price as payment to his heirs. This sum can be more or less than thirty shekels. If the ox injured this slave or that freeman, he gives payment of the full cost of the damage as compensation.

ื’ืžืณ ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืชื ืœื ืœื™ืžื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ืชื ืฉื—ื‘ืœ ื‘ืื“ื ืžืฉืœื ื‘ืžื•ืชืจ ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื

GEMARA: As the mishna first specifies that it is speaking of a forewarned ox, this indicates that with regard to a forewarned ox that injured a freeman, yes, one is liable for full payment, but with regard to an innocuous ox that injured a freeman one does not make full restitution, but pays only half the value of the victim. The Gemara asks: Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. As we learned in a mishna (Bava Kamma 33a) that Rabbi Akiva says: The owner of an innocuous ox that injured a person also pays the full cost of the damage with regard to the difference between the damage the person inflicted on the ox and the damage the ox inflicted on the person. Evidently, Rabbi Akiva does not distinguish between an innocuous and a forewarned ox in a case where an ox injured a person.

ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื”ื•ื ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื“ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื ื ืžื™ ื•ืื™ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืงื ื‘ืขื™ ืœืžืชื ื ืกื™ืคื ื”ืžื™ืช ืขื‘ื“ ื”ืžื™ืช ื‘ืŸ ื—ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ ื”ื•ื ื“ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ื‘ืชื ืœื ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ืžืฉื•ื ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ืžื•ืขื“

The Gemara answers: You may even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, and explain it as follows: The same is true that even the owner of an innocuous ox must make full restitution, but since the tanna wants to teach in the first part of the latter clause of the mishna: An ox that killed a slave and an ox that killed a freeman, which you find in the case of forewarned ox but in the case of an innocuous ox you do not find it, as the penalty for killing a person does not apply to an innocuous ox, it is for this reason that the mishna teaches only the case of a forewarned ox.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื‘ืื•ื ืก ื•ื‘ืžืคืชื” ืœื”ืงืœ ื•ืœื”ื—ืžื™ืจ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืื—ื“ ืฉืื ืก ื•ืคื™ืชื” ืืช ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืฉื‘ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื•ืืช ื”ืงื˜ื ื” ืฉื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื ื•ืชืŸ ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืกืœืขื™ื ื•ื”ื‘ื•ืฉืช ื•ื”ืคื’ื ื”ื›ืœ ืœืคื™ ื”ืžื‘ื™ื™ืฉ ื•ื”ืžืชื‘ื™ื™ืฉ

MISHNA: There are halakhot with regard to a rapist and with regard to a seducer that are lenient and others that are stringent; how so? Both one who raped or seduced a young woman who is the most prominent in the priesthood and one who raped or seduced a young woman who is the lowliest among the Israelites gives the payment of fifty sela, the fine stated in the Torah (see Deuteronomy 22:29). And the payments for humiliation and for degradation resulting from being raped or seduced are assessed differentially; it is all based on the one who humiliates and the one who is humiliated.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืื™ ืื™ืžื ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืกืœืขื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ืžื›ืœ ืžื™ืœื™

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why must the rapist or seducer also pay for her humiliation and degradation? One can say that the Merciful One states in the verse: โ€œThen the man that lay with her shall give to the young womanโ€™s father fifty shekels of silverโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:29), that he is to pay a total of fifty sela for all matters associated with this act, i.e., the fine, degradation, humiliation, and pain.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื–ืขื™ืจื ื™ืืžืจื• ื‘ืขืœ ื‘ืช ืžืœื›ื™ื ื—ืžืฉื™ื ื‘ืขืœ ื‘ืช ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ื•ืช ื—ืžืฉื™ื

Rav Zeira says: It cannot be that he pays a total of only fifty sela, as people will say: Does it make sense that one who engaged in forced intercourse with, i.e., raped, a daughter of kings pays a sum of fifty sela, when she suffers great humiliation, and one who engaged in forced intercourse with the daughter of ordinary people [hedyotot] also pays fifty sela?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื’ื‘ื™ ืขื‘ื“ ื ืžื™ ื™ืืžืจื• ืขื‘ื“ ื ื•ืงื‘ ืžืจื’ืœื™ืช ืฉืœืฉื™ื ืขื‘ื“ ืขื•ืฉื” ืžืขืฉื” ืžื—ื˜ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื–ืขื™ืจื

Abaye said to Rav Zeira: If so, the same claim can be applied with regard to a slave killed by an ox. People will also say: Does it make sense that a slave who pierces pearls [margalit] is worth thirty sela, and a slave who performs needlecraft is also worth thirty sela? Nevertheless, the mishna clearly indicates that there is no distinction between the two slaves, as the Torah states a fixed payment. Rather, Rav Zeira says that there is a different proof:

Scroll To Top