014b – יש בערכין - פרק שלישי – ערכין, דף יד ע”ב

The Torah says (Vayikra 27:22): “If he consecrates to Hashem a field that he bought, which is not of the field of his possession” – a field that is not an ancestral field; this excludes this one, which is an ancestral field.^[1]

תלמוד לומר וכו' - A field that is not fit to become an ancestral field has the law of a purchased field,^[2] to be redeemed at its value; this one is excluded, etc.^[3]

ואח"כ הקדישה - For at the time of consecration it was already an ancestral field; but if he consecrated it and afterwards his father died, it is only like a purchased field.

Whereas according to Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon, even if he consecrated it and afterwards the father died, it is an ancestral field.^[4]

What is the reason?

If because of the verse – the verse comes for Rabbi Meir’s point!^[5]

אי משום קרא - “Which is not of the field of his possession” – perhaps it does not come to exclude where he consecrated it and afterwards his father died, but to exclude where his father died and afterwards he consecrated it, as Rabbi Meir expounds it.

Rather, is it not because he goes after [the time of] redemption?

בתר פדיון - And since at the time of redemption his father has died, it is an ancestral field.

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon found a verse and expounded it.^[6]

If so, let the Torah write: “a field that he bought, which is not his possession”; what is “of the field”? A field that is not fit to become an ancestral field.^[7]

א"כ - That it comes for Rabbi Meir’s point – let the Torah write, etc.

Rav Pappa said: If he consecrated rocky ground, he redeems it at its value.^[8]

פודן בשויהן - Even though they are an ancestral holding.

What is the reason? The Torah said “a place of sowing,” and these are not fit for sowing.^[9]

If he did not redeem them, they go out [to the kohanim] in the Yovel.^[10]

לא גאלם - And the treasurer^[11] sold them to another.

יוצאין לכהנים ביובל - As it is written (Vayikra 27): “And if he will not redeem” etc., and it is written: “And the field, when it goes out in the Yovel” etc.

What is the reason? The Torah said “field,” any [field] at all.

שדה אמר רחמנא - “And the field, when it goes out in the Yovel” etc. (ibid.).

If he sold rocky ground, it may be redeemed within two years.^[12]

פחות משתי שנים - Even though one who sells land to his fellow may not redeem it until it has been two years in the buyer’s hand, as it is written (ibid. 25): “According to the number of years of produce” etc.

What is the reason? The Torah said (Vayikra 25:15) “the number of years of produce,” and this is not fit for produce.

If he did not redeem it, it returns to the owner in the Yovel.

What is the reason? The Torah said (Vayikra 25:28) “and he shall return to his possession,” and this too is a possession.

If he consecrated trees, he redeems them at their value.^[13]

What is the reason? The Torah said (Vayikra 27:16) “a place of sowing,” and not trees.

If he did not redeem them, they do not go out to the kohanim in the Yovel.

לא גאלם אין יוצאין לכהנים ביובל - If the treasurer sold them to another.

The Torah said (Vayikra 27:21) “and the field shall be,” and not trees.

If he sold trees, they may not be redeemed within two years.^[14]

What is the reason? The Torah said “years of produce,” and these do bear produce.

If he did not redeem them, they do not return to the owner in the Yovel.

What is the reason? The Torah said “and he shall return to his possession,” and not trees.

The master said: If he consecrated trees, he redeems them at their value.^[15]

Why? Let them be consecrated together with their land, and let him redeem them together with their land!^[16]

ליפרקו אגב ארעייהו - The place where the tree stands; and let them return to the owners together with their land, if he sold them and the Yovel arrived. So why did he say: if he sold trees and did not redeem them, they do not return to the owners in the Yovel?

And if you will say: he consecrated the trees; he did not consecrate the land –

but the Nehardeans say: One who sells a palm tree to his fellow – [the buyer] acquires it from its base down to the depths!^[17]

משיפולא - From the place where the tree stands down to its depths.

Was it not said about it: Where he comes on account of a claim?^[18]

מחמת טענה - That he claims from him that [the seller] mentioned the land to him.

For a purchased field he gives its value.^[19]

שדה מקנה - It is written (ibid. 27): “And the kohen shall reckon for him the valuation of your assessment.”

The Rabbis taught: (Vayikra 27:23) “The valuation” – what does it come to teach?^[20]

Since it is said: (Vayikra 27:16) “the sowing of a chomer of barley at fifty shekels of silver,” one might think a purchased field is the same?

לפי שנאמר - Regarding the redemption of an ancestral field: “the sowing of a chomer of barley.”

The Torah says: “valuation.”

ת"ל מכסת - The count of its price, that is, its value.

Rabbi Eliezer says: It is said here (Vayikra 27:23) “and he shall reckon,” and it is said there “and he shall reckon”; just as there it is a fixed sum, so here it is a fixed sum.^[21]

נאמר כאן - Regarding a purchased field; and there, regarding an ancestral field.

דבר קצוב - Fifty [shekels of] silver.

They asked: Do the Rabbis accept the gezeirah shavah and use it to derive the fifth, or perhaps they do not accept the gezeirah shavah and do not hold of the fifth?^[22]

מי אית להו הך גזירה שוה - Of “and he shall reckon,” and they use it to derive the fifth – to learn the fifth for a purchased field from an ancestral field.

Rava said: It is reasonable that they do not accept the gezeirah shavah, since the Torah revealed the fifth regarding an ancestral field and regarding one who consecrates his house; they are two verses that come as one, and any two verses that come as one do not teach.^[23]

חומש בשדה אחוזה - And regarding one who consecrates a house, in Parashas Bechukosai; and the fifth of a non-kosher and a kosher animal, and maaser sheni,^[24] is also written there.

And according to the one who says they do teach: since the Torah revealed the fifth regarding maaser, a kosher animal and a non-kosher animal, they are many, and they do not teach.^[25]

A beraisa was taught in accordance with Rava, but not for his reason.

תניא כוותיה דרבא - That there is no fifth for a purchased field.

ולא מטעמיה - For Rava’s reason is because [the Torah] revealed the fifth in all these places, and the beraisa’s reason is because it compared it to erchin^[26] – to a person who vowed the value of himself or of his fellow.

It was taught: (Vayikra 25) “The valuation of your assessment” – the verse compared it to erchin: just as with erchin one does not add a fifth, so with a purchased field one does not add a fifth.^[27]

Mishnah

With a mu’ad ox that killed a slave, [the fixed sum works] to be lenient and to be strict. How so?^[28]

Whether it killed the finest of slaves or the ugliest of slaves, he gives thirty sela.^[29]

If it killed a free man, he gives his value.

מתני' המית בן חורין נותן שויו - As it is written regarding a mu’ad (Shemos 21): “If a ransom is laid upon him” etc., and it is taught in Bava Kamma (40a): “And he shall give the redemption of his soul” – the value of the victim.^[30]

If it injured this one or that one, he gives full damages.^[31]

חבל בזה ובזה - Whether a slave or a free man, and it did not kill him: he pays full damages.

Gemara

With a mu’ad, yes; with a tam, no.^[32]

גמ' במועד אין בתם לא - It refers to the last clause, which teaches “if it injured this one or that one” etc. For the first clause is obvious to us: the fine for a slave does not apply to a tam, as it is written regarding a tam: “And the owner of the ox is clean,” and we say in Bava Kamma in the chapter Shor Shenagach Arba’ah VaChamishah (42a): “Clean of the value of a slave.” And it also teaches “if it killed a free man he gives his value,” and ransom does not apply to a tam, for there too we say: “Clean of half the ransom.”

Shall we say our Mishnah is not like Rabbi Akiva? For we learnt: Rabbi Akiva says: Even a tam that injured a person pays full damages from the excess.^[33]

אף תם שחבל באדם וכו' - In Bava Kamma, in the chapter HaMeniach es HaKad: “Two tam oxen that injured each other” etc. “Rabbi Akiva says: Even a tam that injured a person pays full damages from the excess.” And “from the excess” means: if the person also injured the ox, and the court assessed that the injury to the person exceeds the injury to the ox,^[34] the owner of the ox pays that excess as full damages. Thus a tam that injured a person pays full damages.

You may even say it is Rabbi Akiva; the same is true even of a tam, but since it wants to teach the later clause, “it killed a slave,” “it killed a free man,” which is found with a mu’ad and is not found with a tam, therefore it teaches mu’ad.^[35]

איידי דבעי למיתני סיפא המית עבד המית בן חורין כו' - Therefore it mentioned a mu’ad in the first clause. And what it calls “the later clause” is not truly the last clause, but the last part of the first clause, for the mu’ad is taught in the first clause.

Mishnah

With a rapist and a seducer, [the fixed sum works] to be lenient and to be strict. How so?^[36]

Whether he violated or seduced the greatest [girl] of the kehunah or the least [girl] of Yisrael, he gives fifty sela,

and the shame and the depreciation are all according to the one who shames and the one who is shamed.^[37]

מתני' פגם - It is explained in Kesubos (40a): they assess her – how much a person would be willing to give [more] for a virgin maidservant than for a non-virgin maidservant, to marry her to his slave in whom he has satisfaction.^[38]

Gemara

Why? Say that the Torah said fifty sela for everything!^[39]

גמ' מכל מילי - And let him not give him [payment for] shame and depreciation.

Rav Zeira said: Shall they say: one who had relations with a king’s daughter, fifty; one who had relations with a commoner’s daughter, fifty?^[40]

בעל בת הדיוטות כו' - In astonishment. But now that he gives [payment for] shame, there is a difference between a king’s daughter and a commoner’s daughter.

Abaye said to him: If so, regarding a slave too, they will say: a slave who pierces pearls, thirty; a slave who does needlework, thirty?!^[41][42]

Rather, Rav Zeira said:^[43]

Tosfos

איבעיא להו לרבנן אית להו גז"ש ומפקין ליה לחומש או דלמא כו' - Rabbeinu Elchanan^[44] found it difficult: why do we not learn a gezeirah shavah from them? Granted that we do not learn a binyan av from them, nevertheless let us learn a gezeirah shavah from them! And it seems to the Rabbi: since it was necessary to write the fifth regarding one who consecrates an ancestral field and regarding one who consecrates his house, and we could have learned one from the other by a gezeirah shavah, yet we do not learn [so], but [the Torah] wrote the fifth for each one – learn from this that they are two verses that come as one, and we do not learn from them elsewhere, even by a gezeirah shavah.^[45]

(לעיל) הוו להו שני כתובין הבאין כאחד - And if you will say: what has this to do with two verses that come as one? For regarding a purchased field there is a gezeirah shavah to learn the fifth from an ancestral field, but regarding one who consecrates a house there is no gezeirah shavah! Perhaps here, since “and he shall assess” is written regarding one who consecrates a house, it is as if “and he shall reckon” were written. Or perhaps one can say: “and he shall reckon” is not a complete gezeirah shavah, even though the book calls it a gezeirah shavah. And so we find in the first chapter of Bava Kamma (6b), regarding “‘field’ is said above and ‘field’ is said below,” it is called there a gezeirah shavah, and the Ri said that it is not a complete gezeirah shavah. Or perhaps one can say: because “holy” is written regarding one who consecrates an ancestral field and “holy” is also written [regarding] one who consecrates a house, and “holy”–“holy” is a complete gezeirah shavah; therefore it calls them two verses that come as one.^[46]

במועד אין בתם לא לימא מתני' דלא כרבי עקיבא כו' - It refers to the last part of the last clause, which teaches “if it injured this one or that one, he pays full damages.” But one cannot say it refers to “it killed the slave” and not to “it killed a free man,” for in this Rabbi Akiva does not disagree, that a tam pays neither ransom nor the thirty of a slave, as is stated in Bava Kamma in the chapter Shor Shenagach Daled VeHei (42b).^[47]

בושת הכל לפי המבייש והמתבייש - And depreciation is explained in Kesubos (40b): they estimate how much more a person would be willing to give for a virgin maidservant than for a non-virgin, to marry her to his slave who has given him satisfaction.

יאמרו בת מלכים חמשים בת הדיוט חמשים - There is some difficulty: in the Mishnah it teaches “both the greatest of the kehunah and the least of Yisrael, he gives fifty”; why then does the Gemara here mention the greatest as a king’s daughter, while in the Mishnah it taught the greatest of the kehunah?^[48]

Notes

1. 1. Continues from the previous amud [Arachin 14a]. The beraisa: one bought a field from his father, consecrated it, and then the father died. Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon say it counts as an ancestral field; Rabbi Meir says only if the father died first and he consecrated it afterwards. This line gives Rabbi Meir’s derivation.
2. 2. An ancestral field (sdeh achuzah) is land inherited from one’s fathers; if consecrated it is redeemed at a fixed rate, fifty shekels for the area sown with a chomer of barley. A purchased field (sdeh miknah) is redeemed at its market value, and at the Yovel it returns to the seller.
3. 3. This Rashi and the next explain the beraisa at the end of the previous amud [Arachin 14a]: the first explains the words of Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon, the second Rabbi Meir’s view. They are printed here, at the head of this amud.
4. 4. Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon treat it as ancestral even though it was consecrated before the father died. The Gemara wants to prove from this that Rabbi Shimon goes by the time of redemption, as was asked on the previous amud.
5. 5. The verse alone does not decide it, since it can be read as Rabbi Meir reads it. So their reason seems to be that one goes by the time of redemption, when the father has already died.
6. 6. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak rejects the proof: their reason is not the time of redemption but an exposition of the extra word “of the field”.
7. 7. The extra word teaches that only a field that could never become ancestral counts as purchased. A field bought from one’s father would come to him by inheritance anyway, so it is ancestral even if he consecrated it first.
8. 8. Tarshin is rocky ground unfit for sowing. Rav Pappa gives four rulings each for rocky ground and for trees: redemption from hekdesh, going out to the kohanim in the Yovel, redeeming a sale, and returning to the owner in the Yovel.
9. 9. The fixed price of an ancestral field is measured by its area of sowing [Vayikra 27:16]. Ground that cannot be sown has no such measure, so it is redeemed at its value.
10. 10. An ancestral field that was consecrated and not redeemed by its owner, and the treasurer sold it to another, goes out to the kohanim in the Yovel [Vayikra 27:20–21]. Rocky ground is included in “field”.
11. 11. The gizbar is the treasurer of hekdesh, who sells consecrated property to raise its value for the Temple.
12. 12. One who sells his ancestral field may not redeem it until it has been two years in the buyer’s hand, “by the number of years of produce” [Vayikra 25:15], and in the Yovel it returns to him. Rocky ground yields no produce, so it may be redeemed at once; yet it returns in the Yovel.
13. 13. This speaks of one who consecrated trees alone, without the ground; they are neither “a place of sowing” nor “a field”, so they are redeemed at their value.
14. 14. Trees do bear produce, so the two-year rule applies; but they are not a “possession”, so they do not return in the Yovel.
15. 15. The Gemara returns to Rav Pappa’s first ruling about trees: one who consecrated trees redeems them at their value, not together with the land at the fixed fifty shekels.
16. 16. The question assumes that one who consecrates trees also consecrates the ground beneath them, so they should be redeemed with it as an ancestral field and return to the owner in the Yovel, as on the previous amud [Arachin 14a].
17. 17. The Nehardeans are the Sages of Nehardea in Bavel. By their ruling, one who buys a palm also acquires the ground under it down to the depths; so one who consecrates trees should likewise consecrate their ground.
18. 18. The answer: the Nehardeans’ ruling was said only where the buyer comes with a claim that the seller mentioned the land. Without that, one who sells or consecrates trees does not give the ground.
19. 19. The Gemara returns to the Mishnah [Arachin 14a]: “and for a purchased field he gives its value” – a consecrated purchased field is redeemed at its value, not at fifty shekels. Rashi here explains the Mishnah’s words.
20. 20. Michsas means a valuation, the count of the field’s worth [Vayikra 27:23].
21. 21. A gezeirah shavah links two passages through a shared word. “And he shall reckon” appears for an ancestral field and for a purchased field [Vayikra 27:18], so Rabbi Eliezer holds a purchased field is also redeemed at the fixed sum.
22. 22. Chomesh: an owner who redeems his own consecrated property adds a fifth [Vayikra 27:19]. The question is whether the Rabbis accept the gezeirah shavah only to add the fifth to a purchased field as well.
23. 23. Two verses that come as one: when the Torah states the same law in two places, one may not generalise from them, for if it were a general rule one verse would have sufficed.
24. 24. Maaser sheni, the second tithe, is set aside in years one, two, four and five of the shemittah cycle and eaten in Yerushalayim. An owner who redeems his own maaser sheni adds a fifth.
25. 25. Even for the view that two verses do teach, the fifth is written in more places – maaser sheni, a kosher animal and a non-kosher animal – and more than two verses certainly do not teach.
26. 26. Erchin: one who vows “my valuation upon me” gives hekdesh the fixed sum set by the Torah for that age and gender, regardless of the person’s worth.
27. 27. A hekesh equates two matters that the verse joins. “The valuation of your assessment” [Vayikra 27:23] equates a purchased field with erchin, which carry no fifth, so a purchased field carries none. Rava reached this from the two verses; the beraisa from the hekesh.
28. 28. A tam ox has no record of goring and its owner pays half damages from its body; a mu’ad has gored three times after warning and pays full damages. The Mishnah continues listing fixed Torah sums that can work to be lenient or strict.
29. 29. When an ox kills a slave, its owner pays the master thirty shekels, whether the slave was worth much or little [Shemos 21:32].
30. 30. Kofer: when a mu’ad ox kills a free man, the owner pays a ransom; the beraisa in Bava Kamma rules that it is the victim’s value.
31. 31. If the ox injured a person without killing him, the owner pays full damages as assessed; there is no fixed sum here.
32. 32. The Gemara infers: the Mishnah says “a mu’ad ox”, implying that a tam that injures a person pays only half damages, not full damages.
33. 33. Rabbi Akiva, among the greatest Tanna’im, a student of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua. His view in the Mishnah in Bava Kamma [Bava Kamma 33a] is that a tam that injures a person pays full damages, which our Mishnah seems to contradict.
34. 34. “From the excess”: when the ox and the person injured each other, both injuries are assessed, and the ox’s owner pays only the amount by which the person’s injury exceeds the ox’s.
35. 35. The answer: the Mishnah may follow Rabbi Akiva. It said “mu’ad” only because of the cases of killing a slave or a free man, for the thirty shekels and the ransom apply only to a mu’ad.
36. 36. One who violates or seduces a betrothable maiden pays her father fifty silver shekels [Devarim 22:29], whatever her standing.
37. 37. Boshes is payment for the humiliation, according to the standing of the one who shames and the one shamed; pegam is payment for her lowered worth. These vary with the person, so they work “to be strict”.
38. 38. The source is in Kesubos [Kesubos 40b]: she is assessed as if she were a maidservant, by how much more a person would give for a virgin than for a non-virgin.
39. 39. The question: why are there shame and depreciation payments besides the fifty? Perhaps the fifty covers everything.
40. 40. Rav Zeira, an Amora who went up from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael. His argument: it is unreasonable to equate a king’s daughter with a commoner’s, so shame and depreciation are added according to the person.
41. 41. [Rashi, Shemos 21:32]
42. 42. Abaye rejects this: for a slave too the Torah fixed thirty without distinguishing a skilled slave from a simple one, so that reasoning proves nothing.
43. 43. Continues on the next amud [Arachin 15a]: “If two men came upon her…”.
44. 44. Rabbeinu Elchanan, one of the Ba’alei HaTosfos, the son of the Ri HaZaken.
45. 45. Tosfos: one might think the two-verses rule blocks only a binyan av, not a gezeirah shavah. But the Torah wrote the fifth for both field and house, though one could be learnt from the other by a gezeirah shavah; so nothing is learnt from them at all.
46. 46. Tosfos asks: the house passage lacks “and he shall reckon”, so how are these two parallel verses? Answers: “and he shall assess” counts as “reckon”; or that link is not a full gezeirah shavah; or “holy”–“holy” is.
47. 47. Tosfos: Rabbi Akiva agrees that a tam pays neither ransom nor the thirty, so the question rests only on the clause “if it injured this one or that one”.
48. 48. Tosfos asks: the Mishnah said “the greatest of the kehunah”; why does Rav Zeira say “a king’s daughter”?