Arakhin 14a (יד.) — the Talmud in English

And

it teaches us something incidentally

[the tanna taught us this incidentally] by not saying “the most handsome 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 handsome is this Canaanite!”

For it is written, “You shall not show them favor,” and they expound: “You shall not give them [any] favor,” meaning that it is forbidden to mention beauty with regard to a Canaanite.

And we ask: Although the tanna did not wish to change the wording to “the most handsome among the Canaanites,” for the reason we stated,

let him teach: ‘The most handsome among the Jewish people and the ugliest among the Canaanites’?

And we answer:

He is speaking of one nation; he is not speaking of two nations

—Jewish people and Canaanites—

he is not speaking!

And we are astonished:

Is he not

speaking of two nations?! Yet later in the Mishna he does speak of two nations! For it is explained there that there are instances of leniency and stringency with regard to one who rapes or seduces: If one raped or seduced

the most distinguished woman “of the priesthood,” and the youngest “among the Jewish people,”

he gives fifty sela, and priests and Israelites are two distinct types.

And we answer:

There, with regard to rape and seduction, where he speaks of priests and Israelites,

it is one nation!

Rather,

there is a difference between them because

the sanctity of priests is greater than that of Israelites,

but Jews and Canaanites are two nations.

And if you wish, I can say

another reason why the Mishna says “among the Jewish people” and not “among the gentiles,” even though gentiles are subject to valuations according to Rabbi Meir:

Since he wanted to teach in the latter clause: ‘And with regard to an ancestral field,’ which is found only among Jews,

the law of an ancestral field—for if it is consecrated, it is redeemed at a fixed rate—but

among gentiles it is not found,

the law of an ancestral field [rather, if a gentile consecrated it, it is redeemed according to its value],

because

gentiles

are not possessors of ancestral fields

in the Land of Israel

—they are not

[for this law applies only in the Land of Israel, as it is a mitzva dependent on the Land, and a gentile has no inheritance in the Land – Tosafot].

For that reason he teaches

the most handsome person

among the Jewish people

and the ugliest person among the Jewish people.

Mishna:

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

of leniency and stringency with regard to an ancestral field—

how so?

If one consecrates

an ancestral field

in the sandy area

[the surroundings, as in “the sandy area of the vineyard”]

of the district,

in the environs of the city, where the field is not considered especially valuable because of people trampling through it. [Another interpretation: ḥulat means sand, and meḥoz is the name of a place whose fields were not valuable; that is, one who consecrates fields in the sandy area of that place – Rashash in his understanding of Rashi],

and if one consecrates

an ancestral field

in the orchards

of Sebaste,

[Samaria – Kaftor VaFerach], where the vineyards are of exceptional quality,

the one who redeems them gives

for their redemption from consecration—whether the owner or another person—the amount of fifty sela for every

seed-measure of a homer

[a kor]

of barley,

[a plot of land in which a kor of barley is 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 sandy area of the district.

And with regard to acquired land

that the purchaser consecrated,

he gives

for its redemption from consecration

its value.

Rabbi Eliezer says

contrary to the statement of the first tanna, but:

both an acquired field

7, and an ancestral field

are redeemed from consecration at the fixed rate.

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 gives 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 indeed redeem the field, he shall add one-fifth of the money of your valuation to it, and it shall remain his”;

but with regard to an acquired field,

which the purchaser consecrated,

he does not give

the one who redeems it

a fifth.

Gemara:

One who consecrates trees in his ancestral field redeems them according to their value, and not at the fixed rate applying to the land itself, which is redeemed according to the measure of a house of a seed-measure of a homer of barley for fifty silver shekels [and this is derived from a verse, below on page b].

And

Rav Huna said:

Even if

he consecrated a field full of 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 at the rate established by the Torah for redeeming land [a house of a seed-measure of a homer of barley for fifty silver shekels]. Rather,

he redeems

the

trees according to their value, and then returns and redeems

the

land

according to

a house of a seed-measure of a homer of barley for fifty silver shekels.

And we explain this:

Apparently, Rav Huna holds that a person, when he

consecrates,

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, intending to redeem the trees incidentally with the land, for that would be a miserly approach, since in that case he would give nothing to consecration when redeeming the trees.

Rav Naḥman raised an objection to Rav Huna

from our Mishna:

If one consecrates in the sandy area of the district, or if one consecrates in the orchards of Sebaste,

that is, planted vineyards,

he gives, for a house of a seed-measure of a homer of barley, fifty silver shekels,

and the vineyard too is redeemed with this amount. This is difficult for Rav Huna, who says that, in addition to the land, one must redeem the vines separately, according to their law, as they are redeemed according to their value.

And we answer:

He said to him:

The tanna in the Mishna was not speaking of someone who consecrated land planted with a vineyard, but of someone who consecrated land that

is suitable for the orchards of Sebaste.

Furthermore,

he raised an objection

to Rav Huna from a beraita: It is written in the passage concerning the consecration of an ancestral field: “And if a man consecrates a field of his ancestral property to the Lord, then your valuation shall be according to its seed, a homer of barley seed at fifty silver shekels.” And they expound:

A house of ‘seed’—

I have only

that what is redeemed for fifty shekels is

a house of seed

that is suitable for sowing.

A field

planted with

vines, and a field

planted with

reeds, and a field of trees—how

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

The verse states: “And if a man consecrates a

field” of his ancestral property, etc.;

‘field,’ in any case,

is implied [that is, he redeems the field, and need not redeem the trees – Rabbeinu Gershom]. This is difficult for Rav Huna.

Rav Huna answered him:

He said to him: Here,

in this beraita,

too

[as in the earlier statement, “he consecrated a field full of trees, etc.”],

he redeems

the trees according to their value

and returns and redeems

the land at the fixed rate established for it. And what is added by the phrase “field, in any case” does not refer to the trees, but only to the land, even when it is suitable for the orchards of Sebaste.

He raised an objection

to Rav Huna from another beraita:

If he consecrated three

[according to Rashi’s version]

trees

[young saplings – Tosafot], and the spacing and distance between one tree and another was the spacing appropriate for three trees

from within

for a se’a,

a plantation of ten

trees

to a se’a,

for planting in this manner follows the proper arrangement for planting trees, and all the land between the trees is needed for the trees, and therefore:

he has consecrated

also

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

that are small

and

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, a homer of barley, for fifty silver shekels,”

and the trees are redeemed incidentally to the land.

The rule we stated—that the land and the trees between them are also consecrated—applies only when they were planted at the spacing of a plantation of ten trees per se'a. But if their spacing was

less than this

[less than the spacing of a plantation of ten trees per se'a], so that they were more densely planted,

or

their spacing was

greater than this

, so that they were more spread out and were not planted according to the ordinary arrangement for planting trees,

or

even if they were planted in the ordinary arrangement, but

he consecrated

the three trees

one after the other—

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

The reason that he did not consecrate the land when he consecrated the trees one after the other is that when one sells or consecrates trees, one acquires rights to the land between the trees only when all three trees are sold or consecrated together. Since here he consecrated them one after the other, each act of consecration applies only to a single tree, and therefore the land adjacent to it is not included in his consecration.

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

[as stated by Hakak, based on the Gemara in Bava Batra 72].

Moreover,

that is, it is not only in these circumstances—in which the land between the trees is not consecrated at all—that they are redeemed at their value;

rather, even if he first consecrated

the

trees

that were not planted according to the ordinary arrangement for planting trees [so that the land was not consecrated immediately],

and afterward 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 what we say, because we follow the time of consecration; and since they were not consecrated together,

when he redeems them, he redeems the trees at their value and then redeems

the

land

according to

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

This presents a difficulty from the first part of the beraita against Rav Huna, for it is explicit in the first part that when he consecrated the trees in a manner whereby the land was also consecrated with them [when three trees were planted according to the ordinary arrangement for planting them], he redeems the land according to its law, and the trees are redeemed incidentally to the land, unlike Rav Huna, who said that the trees must also be redeemed separately themselves.

And we explain the difficulty:

And should you say

that one should answer

here, in the first part

of

the beraita as well, he redeems

the trees at their value

and then redeems

the land according to its law, as Rav Huna maintains, and that which is written in the beraita, “he redeems a field of seed, etc.,” refers not to the redemption of both, but only to the redemption of the land—

this

cannot be said, for

since in the latter part

of the beraita [in the case of one who consecrates them not according to the ordinary arrangement, or consecrates the trees one after the other]

he redeems

the trees at their value

and then redeems

the land,

by inference, in the first part he does not

redeem the trees, but only the land.

Rather,

we answer Rav Huna:

Whose opinion is this?

This beraita is the opinion of

Rabbi Shimon, who says

in the Mishna cited below—

one who consecrates does so with a begrudging eye—and he certainly disagrees with Rav Huna’s ruling, which is based only on the principle that one who consecrates does so generously, as explained above. [And Rav Huna disagrees because he holds in accordance with the one who says that one who consecrates does so generously.]

and he certainly disagrees with Rav Huna’s ruling, which is based only on the principle that one who consecrates does so generously, as explained above. [Rav Huna disagrees because he follows the sage who says that one who consecrates does so generously.]

[As it is taught]

[as we learned]

[Rashash: Rabbi Shimon holds that one who consecrates does so with a begrudging eye]:

One who consecrates a field has consecrated all of it

everything within it.

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

the trees, because one who consecrates does so with a begrudging eye,

except for a grafted carob tree and a sycamore trunk,

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

And we raise a difficulty against this:

If

this beraita, which states that one who “consecrated three trees,” is according to

Rabbi Shimon,

then

say that the latter part

of the beraita states:

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

And now there is a difficulty:

And if it is Rabbi Shimon’s opinion, why does he redeem the trees separately and at their value? Indeed, at the time of 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 interim. 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 us follow

the time of

redemption, and let the trees be redeemed

incidentally

to their land, for we have learned from Rabbi Shimon

in the beraita below

that he follows—

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

the redemption

and it is redeemed according to the law of a field of ancestral possession, at a fixed rate. The same should apply with regard to trees that, at the time of redemption, are consecrated together with the land: we should follow Rabbi Shimon according to the time of redemption.

As it is taught

that according to Rabbi Shimon we follow the time of redemption:

From where is it derived with regard to one who purchases a field from his father,

so that it is now a field of acquisition in his possession,

and consecrates it

first,

and afterward his father dies,

and all the more so if his father died first and he then consecrated it, for at the time of consecration it was already truly a field of ancestral possession [for a field that one inherited from one’s father is a field of ancestral possession],

from where is it derived that it is considered for him a field of ancestral possession,

so that he redeems it at a fixed rate and not as a field of acquisition, which is redeemed at its value?

The verse states: “And if he consecrates his purchased field, which is not from his field of ancestral possession”

and so on, “then he shall give the valuation,” [i.e., its value], and we expound it as follows:

A field that is not fit

at the time of consecration

to become a field of ancestral possession

in the future—for example, one purchased from someone who will not bequeath it to him—is the one redeemed at its value;

this one, which is fit

at the time of consecration

to become a field of ancestral possession

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

according to Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Meir says:

The verse did not come to teach this law. Rather:

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

first

and he then consecrates it—where is it derived that it is considered for him a field of ancestral possession?