Arakhin 14b (יד:) — the Talmud in English

The verse states: “And if he consecrates the field of his purchase”—“which is not of the field of his ancestral heritage”

and so on: “then he shall give the valuation,” and so on. And we derive from this:

a field that was not an ancestral field

already at the time of its consecration.

This one is excluded, since it was an ancestral field

at the time of its consecration, for it has now already become his ancestral field [even though he had already acquired it without the inheritance]. But if he consecrated it and only afterward his father died, Rabbi Meir maintains that it is not considered an ancestral field.

And we explain it as follows:

But according to Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, even if he consecrated it and only afterward his father died, it is an ancestral field! What is the reason? If it is because of the verse

“which is not of the field of his ancestral heritage,”

the verse was stated for the purpose taught by Rabbi Meir

—for an actual ancestral field, but not for one that was destined to become such! And from one amplification [“which is not of the field of his ancestral heritage”], one can amplify only the case that it is more logical to include, namely, that his father died and afterward he consecrated it!

Rather, is it not because he follows

Rabbi Shimon

after redemption,

for at that point it is an ancestral field. Consequently, if he consecrated it and only afterward his father died, it is equivalent to a case in which his father died and only afterward he consecrated it. It is therefore proven that Rabbi Shimon says, based on logical reasoning, that we follow the time of redemption. The same should apply with regard to redeeming trees: if the land beneath them was also consecrated before the redemption, their redemption should be together with the land, for the fixed amount of fifty silver shekels.

And we reject this: [in fact, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon do not follow the time of redemption—the language of the Gemara in Bava Batra 71b], and

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon found a verse and expounded it,

which explicitly includes the case in which his father died after he consecrated the field, so that it has the status of a purchased field, as will be explained below. But with regard to trees and land, we follow the time of consecration; and since the trees were consecrated separately, they are redeemed independently and not together with the land.

And this is the verse:

If so,

that the verse “which is not of the field of his ancestral heritage” refers to the case in which his father died and afterward he consecrated the field, as Rabbi Meir maintains,

let the Merciful One write: “If he consecrates the field of his purchase which is not a field of his ancestral heritage.” What is the meaning of “of the field of his ancestral heritage”? It refers to a field that is not fit to become an ancestral field

and that is redeemed “according to your valuation.”

This one, which is fit to become an ancestral field, is excluded,

for this is the meaning of the verse: If he consecrates a field of his purchase that is not even partially an ancestral field, it is redeemed “according to your valuation.” But if it is partially an ancestral field at the time of consecration—since in a single moment it can become an ancestral field [for it could become his ancestral field if his father were to die before the Jubilee]—it is redeemed according to the law of an ancestral field. Thus, we always follow the time of consecration. [In the passage concerning “one who purchases from his father,” this is the version and explanation of the Gemara according to Rashbam in Bava Batra 72a, and according to the version of the Bach there.]

Rav Pappa said:

There are two laws stated with regard to one who consecrates an ancestral field:

a. It is redeemed from consecration at a fixed rate and not according to its market value, as it is written: “If a man consecrates a field of his ancestral heritage to the Lord, your valuation shall be according to its seed: a homer of barley seed for fifty silver shekels.”

b. If the owners did not redeem it from consecration, and the treasurer sold it to another person, it goes out to the kohanim at the Jubilee, as it is written: “If a man consecrates a field of his ancestral heritage,” and so on. “But if he does not redeem the field, and if he sells the field [the treasurer] to another man,” and so on, “then the field, when it goes out at the Jubilee, shall be holy to the Lord, like a field placed under the ban; its ancestral holding shall belong to the kohen.”

And two laws are stated with regard to one who sells an ancestral field:

a. The seller may not redeem the field, even with the purchaser’s consent, until two years have passed, as it is written: “According to the number of years of produce shall he sell it to you.” The restriction expressed by “years” is two, as will be explained below, at the beginning of the chapter entitled “One Who Sells His Field.” [This law is not explicitly stated in a verse that refers to an “ancestral” field. However, the Gemara below, on 18a, uses the expression “the two years of an ancestral field.”]

b. If the owners did not redeem it from the purchaser, it returns at the Jubilee to its owners, as it is written: “If your brother becomes impoverished and sells part of his ancestral heritage,” and so on. “At the Jubilee it shall go out, and he shall return to his ancestral heritage.”

Rav Pappa came to explain the laws governing one who consecrates or sells rocky land [filled with stones and unfit for sowing—Rabbenu Gershom], and trees in his ancestral holding, with regard to the laws mentioned above.

If he consecrated rocky land:

a.

He redeems it

from consecration

according to its value,

and not like an ordinary ancestral field.

What is the reason? “A place of seed”

a homer of barley

the Merciful One said

that it is to be redeemed for fifty silver shekels;

but these are not fit for sowing.

b. But

if he did not redeem them

from consecration and the treasurer sold them to another person,

they go out to the kohanim at the Jubilee,

like an ordinary ancestral field.

What is the reason? “And the

field”—

“field,”

the Merciful One said

that its ancestral holding shall belong to the kohen.

“Field” means any field,

even rocky land.

If he sold rocky land:

a.

It may be redeemed

even in

less

than two years,

unlike an ordinary ancestral field.

What is the reason? “According to the number of years of

produce”

“produce”

shall he sell it to you—

the Merciful One said, but these are not fit to yield produce.

b. But

if he did not redeem them

from the purchaser,

they return to the owners at the Jubilee,

like an ordinary ancestral field.

What is the reason? “At the Jubilee it shall go out,

and it shall return

to its ancestral holding”—

the Merciful One said, and this

rocky field

is his ancestral holding.

If he consecrated trees:

a.

He redeems

them from consecration

according to their value,

unlike an ancestral field.

What is the reason? “A place of seed”

a homer of barley—

the Merciful One said

that it is to be redeemed for fifty silver shekels,

but not trees.

b. And likewise, if

he did not redeem them

from consecration, and the treasurer sold them to another person,

they do not go out to the kohanim at the Jubilee,

unlike an ancestral field.

What is the reason? “And the ‘field’”—

the Merciful One said,

that its ancestral holding shall belong to the kohen,

but not trees.

If he sold trees:

a.

They may not be redeemed in less

than two years,

as an ancestral field.

What is the reason?

According to the number of

“years of produce”

shall he sell it to you—

the Merciful One said, and these are fit to yield produce.

b. But

if he did not redeem them

from the purchaser,

they do not return to the owners at the Jubilee,

unlike an ancestral field.

What is the reason? “At the Jubilee it shall go out, and it shall return

to

its ancestral holding”—

the Merciful One said, but not trees.

The Master said: If he consecrated trees, he redeems them according to their value!

And we raise an objection to this: Since one who consecrates a tree [even a single tree] also consecrates the land beneath it, insofar as the consecrator may not dig a cavity beneath the tree [as the Gemara explains below],

why

does he redeem the trees according to their value?

Let the trees be consecrated

together

with their land, and let them be redeemed

automatically

together with their land,

according to its law, namely, that it is redeemed at a fixed rate!

A similar difficulty arises regarding what Rav Pappa said, that when one sells trees they do not return to the owners at the Jubilee. Since the purchaser acquired the land beneath the tree insofar as the seller may not dig a cavity beneath it,

should they not return to the owners

at the Jubilee

together with their land,

since the land too was sold with them?

And we explain the objection:

And should you say that he consecrated the trees but did not consecrate the land,

meaning that the land beneath the tree is not included in the consecration of the tree,

but did not the sages of Nehardea say

otherwise:

One who sells a palm tree to another

[one who sells even a single palm tree to another]

acquires for him

the land beneath the tree

from the tree’s base

[the place where the tree is situated]

to the depths

[the abyss], so that the seller may not dig beneath it [Tosafot, Bava Batra 38b; Rashbam there explains it differently], and the same should apply to consecration?

And we answer:

Was it not stated concerning this

matter of the sages of Nehardea [in Bava Batra 38a] that this law applies only

when

the purchaser

makes the purchase on the basis of a claim,

meaning that the seller mentioned land together with the sale; but without this, it does not apply. Rav Pappa is speaking of a case in which the seller did not mention land.

We learned in the Mishna:

And in the case of a purchased field, he gives its value.

The Sages taught:

It is written in the passage concerning the consecration of a purchased field: “And if he consecrates to the Lord a field of his purchase that is not of the field of his ancestral heritage, the kohen shall calculate for him the amount of the valuation until the Jubilee year, and he shall give the valuation on that day as a holy thing to the Lord.”

“According to the amount” [“the amount of the valuation”]

[“the amount of your valuation”]—

what does the verse come to teach

[Bach]?

Since it is stated

with regard to one who consecrates an ancestral field: “And your valuation shall be according to its seed,

a homer of barley seed for fifty silver shekels,” one might have thought that a purchased field is also so,

that it is redeemed at this fixed rate.

The verse therefore states: “amount”,

which refers to the monetary value of the field; that is, its value. The kohen calculates its value for him, according to the year in which he redeems it, until the Jubilee year.

Rabbi Eliezer says: It is stated here,

with regard to one who consecrates a purchased field:

“And he shall calculate”,

the kohen shall calculate for him the amount of the valuation.

And it is stated elsewhere,

with regard to one who consecrates an ancestral field: “And if he consecrates his field after the Jubilee,”

“and the kohen shall calculate

for him the money,” and so on. This is a gzera shava, and it teaches:

Just as there,

with regard to one who consecrates an ancestral field,

there is a fixed amount, so too here,

with regard to one who consecrates a purchased field,

there is a fixed amount,

namely, fifty silver shekels.

They raised a dilemma: The Rabbis

who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer and maintain that a purchased field is redeemed according to its value—do they

have a gzera shava

of “and he shall calculate—and he shall calculate,” to derive the law of a purchased field from that of an ancestral field,

and they derive it

from the gzera shava not with regard to redemption at a fixed rate, but

with regard to the additional fifth,

so that even for a purchased field the consecrator adds a fifth, just as he adds one for an ancestral field? [It would then emerge that they disagree with Rabbi Eliezer in two matters: a. A purchased field is redeemed according to its value; b. a fifth is added for a purchased field.]

Or perhaps, they do not have a gzera shava

at all,

and they do not have the additional fifth

for a purchased field [and in this they do not disagree with Rabbi Eliezer]?

And we resolve the dilemma:

Rava said:

It is logical: They do not have

the Rabbis

a gzera shava

at all [and they agree with Rabbi Eliezer that no fifth is added for a purchased field].

Since the Merciful One specified

that one adds

a fifth with regard to an ancestral field and with regard to one who consecrates his house

[“And when a man consecrates his house,” and so on. “And if the one who consecrated it redeems his house, he shall add a fifth of the money of your valuation to it, and it shall be his”],

they become

an ancestral field and one who consecrates a house

two verses that come as one, and two verses that come as one do not teach

[Tosafot here and below, on 15a, explain in several ways how this teaches that we do not derive the gzera shava].

And we explain:

And according to the one who says

that two verses that come as one

do teach,

there is nevertheless, according to the Rabbis, no fifth for a purchased field:

Since the Merciful One specified a fifth with regard to the second tithe

when one redeems it in order to take its value to Jerusalem [as it is written: “And if a man redeems any of his second tithe, he shall add a fifth of it to it”], and

with regard to a kosher animal

that was consecrated for the altar and then developed a blemish [as it is written: “And if it is any impure animal”—the verse speaks of an animal with a blemish, which is impure for sacrificial purposes, and teaches that unblemished sacred animals do not become ordinary property through redemption unless they develop a blemish—Rashi in the Ḥumash—“which may not be offered as an offering to the Lord,” and so on. “And if he redeems it, he shall add its fifth to your valuation”],

and with regard to an impure animal

that was consecrated for Temple maintenance [as it is written: “And if it is an impure animal, he shall redeem it according to your valuation”—here the verse speaks of one who consecrates an impure animal for Temple maintenance, Rashi in the Ḥumash—“and he shall add its fifth to it”],

there are many

verses,

and they do not teach,

even according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do teach.

It was taught in accordance with Rava

that one who consecrates a purchased field does not add a fifth,

but not for his reason,

namely, that there are several verses that come as one and do not teach, but for another reason.

As it was taught:

It is written in the passage concerning the redemption of a purchased field from consecration:

“According to the amount”

[“And the kohen shall calculate for him ‘the amount’ of the valuation,” and so on]—

“amount” means money,

[that is, he gives its value—Rabbenu Gershom].

And so it says

[Numbers 31]:

“And you shall raise a ‘tax’ to the Lord”

and so on, “one person out of five hundred,” [for he gave exactly one person out of five hundred and did not suffer a loss—Rabbenu Gershom].

One might have thought that he adds a fifth; the verse therefore states:

“the”

“amount of the valuation”; the verse juxtaposes it with valuations,

namely, “your valuation.”

Just as in valuations one does not add

a person who valued himself or another

a fifth, so too, in the case of a purchased field, one does not add a fifth!

Mishna:

This is what we said at the beginning of the chapter: that there is,

with regard to an ox attested to be dangerous that killed a slave, a leniency and a stringency;

as follows:

Whether it killed

the ox

the most handsome of slaves,

whose value was one hundred maneh,

or the ugliest of slaves,

who was worth only five sela,

the owner

of the ox gives the slave’s owner a fine of

thirty sela,

so that we are lenient with regard to the handsome one and stringent with regard to the ugly one.

If it killed

the attested dangerous ox

a free person, he gives

the

value

of the injured party, as it is written: “If it is an ox accustomed to gore, from yesterday and the day before yesterday, and its owner was warned but did not guard it, and it killed a man or a woman,” and so on: “If ransom is imposed upon him, he shall give the redemption of his life according to whatever is imposed upon him.” And the beraita expounded in Bava Kamma: “‘He shall give the redemption of his life’—the monetary value of the injured party.”

If the ox injured

the

one

slave

and the other

free person, but did not kill them,

the owner

of the ox gives

full

compensation,

according to the value of the slave.

Gemara:

And they infer from the Mishna: “With regard to a goring ox, etc., if it caused injury in this case and in that case, he pays full damages”:

In the case of a forewarned ox, no

full damages! But

in the case of an innocuous ox

[that has not yet gored three times and has not been forewarned in court] that injured a person,

he does not

pay full damages, but only half-damages — Rabbeinu Gershom.

And if so,

let us say that our Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, as we learned:

an

innocuous ox that injured a person

and the person also injured the ox, and the court assessed the injury caused by the ox to the person as greater than the injury caused by the person to the ox,

the owner pays

of the ox

for the difference

this

full damages,

as Rabbi Akiva maintains that an innocuous ox that injured a person pays full damages?

And we answer:

Even if you say that the Mishna is in accordance with

that the Mishna follows the opinion of

Rabbi Akiva,

it is understandable that the Mishna states, “with regard to a forewarned ox”; indeed, in this case, when the ox damages a person,

the same law applies: even an innocuous ox also

pays full damages. And the reason the tanna stated “with regard to a forewarned ox” is:

since he needed to teach in the latter clause

of the first clause: “that

killed

the

slave” and

“

killed a freeman,”

and the case concerns the fine of thirty shekels for a slave and the ransom payment for a freeman,

as it is only in the case of a forewarned ox that you can find

a liability for both the fine and the ransom,

in the case of an innocuous ox you cannot find

a liability for the fine for a slave and the ransom for a freeman [as it is written with regard to an innocuous ox: “If an ox gores a man or a woman and he dies, the ox shall surely be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, and the owner of the ox is clear,” and in Bava Kamma they expound: “clear of the value of a slave,” and “clear of half the ransom”],

for that reason he taught “with regard to a

fore

warned ox.”

Mishna:

This is what we learned at the beginning of the chapter, that there is

with regard to one who rapes

[a virgin]

and one who seduces

[a virgin]

to make things lenient and stringent; how so?

Whether one raped or seduced

[or seduced]

the most distinguished woman of priestly lineage or the least distinguished Israelite woman, he pays

a fine for the affliction and the pleasure of intercourse of

fifty sela,

and we find that the law is lenient with regard to the most distinguished woman of priestly lineage and stringent with regard to the least distinguished Israelite woman.

And the humiliation and the depreciation

[for having been a virgin and for the damage done to her], he must pay in addition to the fifty silver coins! [According to Tosafot Yom Tov and Tiferet Yisrael]. And the humiliation that he pays is

entirely according to the one who causes the humiliation

a middling person who humiliates: his humiliation is more severe than that caused by a worthless person, and less than that caused by an important person,

and the one who is humiliated

according to her importance is her humiliation [Rashi, Ketubot 40a]. And the depreciation is assessed according to how much more a person would be willing to pay for a virgin maidservant than for one who has had intercourse, when he wishes to marry her to his slave, with whom he is pleased.

Gemara:

There is a difficulty with the Mishna, which says that he pays, in addition to the fifty sela prescribed by the Torah, also for humiliation and depreciation:

Why? Let us say that the Merciful One stated: fifty sela

[as it is written: “And the man who lay with her shall give the father of the young woman fifty silver coins”]

for all

[for every]

matters,

and that humiliation and depreciation are also included in the fifty?

And we answer:

Rav Zeira said:

If you say that he does not pay humiliation as a separate payment,

people will say: One who had intercourse with a king’s daughter —

fifty

he pays;

one who had intercourse with a commoner’s daughter —

he too

fifty

he pays! And where is the distinction between them? Necessarily, there is a distinction with regard to humiliation between a king’s daughter and a commoner’s daughter. And since it is evident that there are additional payments beyond the fifty sela [and Scripture did not mention them here because humiliation applies also in the case of other injuries], depreciation must likewise be paid; and depreciation is a form of damage for which payment is made in the case of other injuries.

And we challenge this:

Abaye said

to Rav Zeira:

If so, with regard to

an ox that killed a

slave,

for which the owner of the ox pays thirty sela,

people should also say:

For

a slave who cuts precious stones, thirty

he pays, whereas for

a slave who performs needlework

[a tailor, one who sews],

thirty

he pays! Where is the distinction between them? Rather, it must be said that although there is a distinction between them, nevertheless the Torah set a uniform fixed amount so that it would not be necessary to assess each case every time. Likewise, with regard to one who rapes or seduces, we should say that humiliation is included in the fifty, and although it would be appropriate to distinguish between cases, the Torah set a uniform fixed amount so that an assessment by the court would not be necessary.

Rather, Rav Zeira said

to prove that humiliation is paid in addition to the fine: