Arakhin 14a — the Talmud in English

And

the tanna teaches us an incidental point

[the tanna taught this incidentally by not saying “the most attractive person among the Canaanites”] —

in accordance with what Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav. For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: It is forbidden for a person to say, “How attractive is this Canaanite!”

as it is written: “You shall not show them favor,” and they expound the verse: “You shall not give them favor,” meaning that it is forbidden to mention a Canaanite’s beauty.

The Gemara asks: Although the tanna did not want to change the wording to “the most attractive person among the Canaanites,” for the reason stated,

let him teach: “the most attractive person among the Jewish people and the least attractive person among the Canaanites.”

The Gemara answers:

He is speaking about one nation; he is not speaking about two nations —

Jewish people and Canaanites —

he is not speaking about them.

The Gemara wonders:

Is he not

speaking about two nations? But later the Mishna does speak about two groups! It explains there that with regard to one who violates and one who seduces there can be leniency and stringency, because one who violated or seduced

the oldest “among the priestly families,” and the youngest “among the Jewish people,”

gives fifty sela, and priests and Israelites are two distinct categories.

The Gemara answers:

There, with regard to one who violates and one who seduces — where it discusses priests and Israelites —

there is

one nation.

Rather,

the sanctity of priests is greater than that of Israelites,

and that is the distinction between them. But Israelites and Canaanites are two nations.

And if you wish, say

there is another reason why the Mishna says “among the Jewish people” rather than “among the gentiles,” even though gentiles are subject to valuations according to Rabbi Meir:

since the tanna wanted to teach at the end, “and with regard to an ancestral field,” a law that applies only to Jews,

because the law of an ancestral field — that if it is consecrated, it is redeemed for a fixed amount — is found among Jews, whereas

among gentiles it is not found

[unless it is redeemed according to its actual value],

for

gentiles

are not people who possess ancestral holdings

in the Land of Israel,

they are not included in that category

[because this law applies only in the Land of Israel, being a commandment dependent on the Land, and a gentile has no inheritance in the Land — Tosafot]. Therefore,

for this reason the tanna teaches

“the most attractive person among the

Jewish people”

and “the least attractive person among the Jewish people.”

Mishna:

This is what we learned at the beginning of our chapter: There are cases involving

an ancestral field in which the law is lenient and cases in which it is stringent —

how so?

If one consecrates

an ancestral field

in the uncultivated area

[the surrounding area, as in “the uncultivated area of the vineyard”]

of the district,

in the area surrounding the city, where the fields are not especially valuable because people walk over them. [Another interpretation: “in the uncultivated area” refers to sandy soil; “of the district” is the name of a place whose fields were not valuable. That is, he consecrates fields in the uncultivated area of that place — Rashash in his understanding of Rashi],

and if one consecrates

an ancestral field

in the orchards

of Sebaste

[Samaria — Kafṭor VaFerach], where the vineyards are of exceptionally high quality,

the one who redeems them

— whether the owner or another person — pays for the redemption of the consecrated property, for every

area requiring a homer of seed

[a kor]

of barley,

[a plot of land in which a kor of barley can be sown]

fifty

silver shekels

[if he redeems it at the beginning of the Jubilee cycle].

Thus, we are lenient with regard to the orchards of Sebaste and stringent with regard to the uncultivated area of the district.

And with regard to acquired land,

which the purchaser consecrated to the Temple,

he gives

for the redemption of the consecrated property

its actual value.

Rabbi Eliezer says, contrary to the opinion of the first tanna,

but rather:

both an acquired field

7 , and an ancestral field

are redeemed from the consecrated property for the fixed amount.

And Rabbi Eliezer concludes:

What is the difference between

an ancestral field and an acquired field? With regard to an ancestral field, it is

the owner of the ancestral field who consecrated it who pays and adds a fifth to the redemption payment, as it is written in the passage concerning an ancestral field: “And if he who consecrated it shall redeem the field, he shall add one-fifth of the money of your valuation to it, and it shall be established for him,”

but with regard to an acquired field,

which the purchaser consecrated,

the redeemer does not give

the person who redeems it

a fifth.

Gemara:

One who consecrates trees in his ancestral field redeems them for their actual value, and not according to the fixed amount assigned to the land itself, which is redeemed according to the measure of an area requiring a homer of barley seed, for fifty silver shekels [and this is derived from a verse, below on page 14b].

And

Rav Huna said:

Even if

he consecrated a field filled with trees,

the field together with its trees,

when he redeems them,

we do not say that it is sufficient for him to redeem the field together with the trees for the amount established by the Torah for the redemption of land [an area requiring a homer of barley seed, for fifty silver shekels]. Rather,

he redeems

the

trees for their actual value, and then redeems again

the

land

according to

the measure of an area requiring a homer of barley seed, for fifty silver shekels.

And we explain this statement:

Apparently, Rav Huna holds that when a person

is

consecrating, he consecrates generously;

he

consecrates! Therefore, we say that his intention was to consecrate the trees separately and the land separately. He did not consecrate them together on the condition that the trees would be redeemed along with the land, since that would reflect a miserly intention: in that case, the consecrated property would receive nothing for the redemption of the trees.

Rav Naḥman raised an objection to Rav Huna

from our Mishna:

If one consecrates a field in the uncultivated area of the district, or if one consecrates a field in the “orchards” of Sebaste,

that is, planted vineyards,

he gives, for an area requiring a homer of barley seed, fifty silver shekels,

and the vineyard too is redeemed with this payment. This is difficult for Rav Huna, who says that one must redeem not only the land but also the grapevines separately, according to their law, since they are redeemed for their actual value.

The Gemara answers:

He said to him:

The tanna of the Mishna was not speaking about one who consecrated land in which a vineyard had been planted. Rather, he was speaking about one who consecrated land that

is suitable for the orchards of Sebaste.

Furthermore,

Rav Naḥman raised an objection

to Rav Huna from a

baraita: It is written in the passage concerning the consecration of an ancestral field: “And if a man shall consecrate to the Lord a field of his ancestral property, then your valuation shall be according to its seed, an area requiring a homer of barley seed, for fifty silver shekels.” And they derive:

“An area requiring seed” —

I know only

that an area that can be sown

with seed is redeemed for fifty shekels.

A field

planted with

vines, and a field

planted with

reeds, and a field of trees — from where

do we know that it too is redeemed for fifty silver shekels?

The verse states: “And if a man shall consecrate a

field of his ancestral property,” etc.;

“field,” in any case

means that the field is redeemed, and it is not necessary to redeem the trees separately — Rabbeinu Gershom. This is difficult for Rav Huna.

Rav Huna answered him:

He said to him: Here,

in this baraita,

also [the same as in the earlier statement, “if he consecrated a field filled with trees, etc.”],

he redeems

the trees for their actual value

and then redeems again

the land for the fixed amount assigned to it. The additional wording “field, in any case” does not refer to the trees; it refers only to the land, even when it is suitable for the orchards of Sebaste.

He raised an objection

to Rav Huna from another baraita:

If one consecrated three

[according to Rashi’s version]

trees

[young saplings — Tosafot], and the spacing and distance between one tree and the next were the spacing suitable for three trees

within

a plantation of ten

trees

for a se’a,

meaning that the trees were planted in the proper arrangement for planting trees, and all the land between the trees was needed for them, therefore:

he has consecrated

also

the land, even though he did not mention it, since the land is subordinate to the trees [Rabbeinu Gershom],

and

also

the trees

that are small

among them.

also

the trees

that are small

between them.

When he redeems

the trees and the land,

he redeems

the land according to

a field of seed of a homer of barley, for fifty silver shekels,

and the trees are redeemed incidentally to the land.

And the rule that we stated—that the land and the trees between them also became consecrated—is only when they were planted with the spacing of a plantation of ten to a beit se'a. But if their spacing was

less than this

[than the spacing of a plantation of ten to a beit se'a], so that they were more crowded,

or

their spacing was

greater than this,

so that they were more scattered, and were not planted according to the order of the planting of trees,

or

even if they were planted according to the order, but

he consecrated

the three trees

one after another—

he has consecrated neither the land nor the trees between them.

And the reason that he did not consecrate the land when he consecrated the trees one after another is that there is acquisition of the land between the trees when one sells or consecrates trees only for three trees together; and since here he consecrated them one after another, each consecration is only for one tree, and therefore the land adjacent to it is not included in his consecration.

Therefore, when he redeems, he redeems the trees at their value

[a law stated on the basis of the Gemara of Bava Batra 72].

Furthermore,

that is to say: not only in these cases—in which the land between them is not consecrated at all—are they redeemed at their value,

but even if he consecrated

first

his trees

that were not planted according to the order of the planting of trees [so that the land is not consecrated immediately],

and afterward he consecrated

separately also the

land,

for although one might say that now both the land and the trees are consecrated, and that the trees should be redeemed incidentally to the land, this is not said, because we follow the time of the consecration; and since they were not consecrated together, therefore

when he redeems: he redeems the trees at their values and again redeems

the

land

according to

a field of seed of a homer of barley, for fifty silver shekels.

And the first clause of the beraita is difficult against Rav Huna, for it is explicit in the first clause that when he consecrated the trees in such a manner that the land too is consecrated with them [when there were three trees planted according to the order of their planting], he redeems the land according to its law, and the trees are redeemed incidentally to the land, and not as Rav Huna said, that he must redeem the trees also separately by themselves.

And we explain the difficulty:

And should you say

to answer

here, in the first clause

of

the beraita he too redeems

the trees at their values

and again redeems

the land according to its law and like Rav Huna, and that which is written in the beraita, “He redeems a field of seed, etc.,” is not for the redemption of both of them, but for the redemption of the land alone—

this

cannot be said, for

from the latter clause

in the beraita [when he consecrated not according to the order, or trees one after another]

he redeems

the trees at their value

and again redeems

the land,

by inference, in the first clause he does not

redeem the trees, but only the land.

Rather,

we answer Rav Huna:

Whose view is this

beraita?

It is the view of Rabbi Shimon, who says

in the Mishna brought below—

one who consecrates, consecrates with an evil eye,

and he certainly disagrees with the ruling of Rav Huna, which is only because one who consecrates consecrates with a generous eye, as explained above. [And Rav Huna, who disagrees, is because he holds in accordance with the one who says that one who consecrates consecrates with a generous eye.]

For it was taught

for we learned

[Rashash] that Rabbi Shimon holds that one who consecrates consecrates with an evil eye:

One who consecrates the field has consecrated all of it

everything within it;

Rabbi Shimon says: One who consecrates the field has not consecrated

the trees, because he consecrates with an evil eye,

but a grafted carob tree and the trunk of a sycamore,

which are old and very large and draw sustenance from consecrated land more than the other trees; and so it is explained in Bava Batra.

And we raise a difficulty against this:

If

this beraita, which says “he consecrated three trees,” is according to

Rabbi Shimon,

then

say in the latter clause

of the beraita:

“Furthermore, even if he consecrated his trees and afterward consecrated the land, when he redeems, he redeems the trees at their values, and again redeems the land, a field of seed of a homer of barley, for fifty silver shekels.”

And now the difficulty is:

And if it is Rabbi Shimon, why does he redeem the trees separately and at their values? Indeed, at the time of the consecration the trees were not consecrated together with the field, but at the time of redemption the trees are consecrated together with the land that he consecrated in the meantime; and if so:

why does he redeem the trees separately and at their value? Although at the time of consecration the trees were not consecrated together with the field, at the time of redemption the trees are consecrated together with the land that he consecrated in the interim. If so:

let him follow

the time of

redemption, and let him redeem

the trees

incidentally to their land, for we have heard from Rabbi Shimon

in the beraita below

that he follows—

with regard to a field that was a “purchased field” at the time of the consecration and became, before the redemption, an “ancestral field”—

the redemption

and it is redeemed according to the law of an ancestral field, at the prescribed rate; and the same law should apply with regard to trees that at the time of redemption are consecrated together with the land: we should have followed Rabbi Shimon according to the redemption.

For it was taught

that according to Rabbi Shimon we follow the redemption:

From where is it derived regarding one who purchases a field from his father,

which is now a purchased field in his possession,

and consecrates it

first,

and afterward his father dies,

and all the more so if his father died first and afterward he consecrated it, for at the time of the consecration it was already a genuine ancestral field [for a field that he inherited from his father is an ancestral field],

from where is it derived that it shall be before him as an ancestral field,

to redeem it at the prescribed rate and not as a purchased field, which is redeemed at its value?

The verse states: “And if he consecrates a purchased field of his, ‘which is not from the field of his ancestral property,’

etc., “and he shall give its valuation” [that is, its value]; and we expound:

A field that is not fit

at the time of consecration

to become an ancestral field

in the future, such as one that he acquired from another who is not his heir, is the one that is redeemed at its value;

this one, which is fit

at the time of consecration

to become an ancestral field,

if his father dies, is excluded and is not redeemed at its value [if his father died before the redemption],

the words of Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Meir says:

the verse did not come to teach this law, but:

From where is it derived regarding one who purchases a field from his father, and his father dies

first

and afterward he consecrates it, from where is it derived that it shall be before him as an ancestral field?