Arakhin 14b — the Talmud in English

The verse therefore says: “But if it is a field acquired,” “which is not from the field of his ancestral heritage”

and so on: “and he shall give the valuation” and so on. And we derive:

a field that is not an ancestral-heritage field

already at the time of the consecration;

this one is excluded, for it is an ancestral-heritage field

at the time of the consecration, since now it has already become an ancestral possession for him [even though it is already acquired by him without the inheritance]. But if he consecrated it and afterward his father died, Rabbi Meir holds that it is not like an ancestral-heritage field.

And we explain it:

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

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

the verse comes for the matter of Rabbi Meir

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

Rather, is it not because he goes

—Rabbi Shimon—

after the redemption,

for then it is an ancestral-heritage field. And consequently, if he consecrated it and afterward his father died, this is like his father dying and afterward he consecrated it. It is thus proven that Rabbi Shimon says based on reasoning that we follow the time of the redemption; and the same law applies that we should follow the time of the redemption regarding the redemption of trees, whose ground was also consecrated before the redemption—that their redemption should be together with the ground for fifty silver shekels.

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

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

which explicitly amplifies that it has the status of an acquired field even if his father died after he consecrated it, as explained below. But regarding trees and ground, we follow the time of the consecration, and since the trees were consecrated separately, they are redeemed independently and not together with the ground.

And this is the verse:

If so,

that the verse “which is not from the field of his ancestral heritage” comes for the case in which his father died and afterward he consecrated it, and according to Rabbi Meir,

let the Merciful One write: “If it is a field acquired which is not a ‘field’ of ancestral heritage.” What is the meaning of “from the field” of his ancestral heritage? A field that is not fit to become an ancestral-heritage field

is the one that is redeemed “according to your valuation”;

this one, which is fit to become an ancestral-heritage field, is excluded,

for this is the meaning of the verse: If it is an acquired field, which is not “part” of an ancestral-heritage field, then it is redeemed “according to your valuation”; but if it is partially an ancestral-heritage field at the time of the consecration, so that in one moment it can become an ancestral-heritage field [since it can become an ancestral-heritage field for him if his father dies before the Jubilee], it is redeemed according to the law of an ancestral-heritage field, and we always follow the time of the consecration. [In the sugya of “one who purchases from his father,” the version of the Gemara and its explanation follow Rashbam in Bava Batra 72b, and the version of the Bach there.]

Rav Pappa said:

Two laws were stated concerning one who consecrates an ancestral-heritage field:

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

b. If the owners did not redeem it from the consecration, and the treasurer sold it to another person, it goes out to the priests at the Jubilee, as it is written: “And if he consecrates from his ancestral-heritage field” and so on. “And if he does not redeem the field, and if [the treasurer] sells the field to another person” and so on, “then the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy to the Lord, like a field devoted; its ancestral possession shall belong to the priest.”

And two laws were stated concerning one who sells an ancestral-heritage field:

a. The seller may not redeem the field, even with the consent of the purchaser, except after two years. As it is written: “According to the number of years of produce shall he sell to you,” and “years” in the dual form means two, as explained below, at the beginning of the chapter “One Who Sells His Field.” [This law is not explicit in the verse that it concerns an “ancestral-heritage” field. But the language of the Gemara below, 18a, is: “two years concerning an ancestral-heritage field.”]

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

And Rav Pappa came to explain the law of one who consecrates or sells a rocky field [full of rocks, which is unfit for sowing—Rabbenu Gershom], and trees that are in his ancestral possession: what their laws are concerning the aforementioned laws.

If he consecrated rocky ground:

a.

They are redeemed

from the consecration

according to their value,

[and not like an ordinary ancestral-heritage field].

What is the reason? “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 they were not redeemed

by the owners from the consecration, and the treasurer sold them to another,

they go out to the priests at the Jubilee.

[Like an ordinary ancestral-heritage field.]

What is the reason?

“And the

‘field’”—

the Merciful One said

that its ancestral possession shall belong to the priest;

a field of any kind

is implied, even a rocky field.

If he sold rocky ground:

a.

They are redeemed

even within

less

than two years

[unlike an ordinary ancestral-heritage field].

What is the reason?

“According to the number of years of

‘produce’”

shall he sell to you—

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

b. But

if he did not redeem them

the seller from the purchaser,

they return to the owners at the Jubilee

[like an ordinary ancestral-heritage field].

What is the reason?

“And he shall go out in the Jubilee and return

‘to his ancestral possession’”—

the Merciful One said, and this

rocky field

is his ancestral possession.

If he consecrated trees:

a. He

redeems

them from the consecration

according to their value

[unlike an ancestral-heritage field].

What is the reason? “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

they were not redeemed

by the owners from the consecration, and the treasurer sold them to another,

they do not go out to the priests at the Jubilee

[unlike an ancestral-heritage field].

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

the Merciful One said,

that its ancestral possession shall belong to the priest,

but not trees.

If he sold trees:

a.

They are not redeemed within less

than two years

[as an ancestral-heritage field].

What is the reason?

“According to the number of”

two ‘years of produce’

shall he sell to you—

the Merciful One said, and these are fit for produce.

b. But

if he did not redeem them

the seller from the purchaser,

they do not return to the owners at the Jubilee

[unlike an ancestral-heritage field].

What is the reason?

“And he shall go out in the Jubilee and return

‘to his ancestral possession’”—

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 against this: Since one who consecrates a tree [even a single one] also consecrates the ground beneath it, insofar as the consecrator may not dig a cavity beneath the tree [as the Gemara explains below], if so,

why

does he redeem the trees according to their value?

Let the trees be consecrated

together with their ground,

and let them be redeemed

[and be redeemed] automatically

together with their ground

and according to its law, which is redeemed at a fixed rate!

And likewise, it is difficult concerning what Rav Pappa said, that when one sells trees they do not return to the owners at the Jubilee. For since the purchaser acquired the ground 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 ground,

since it too was sold with them?

And we explain the question:

And if you would say: He consecrated the trees, but he did not consecrate the ground,

so that the ground beneath it is not included in the consecration of a tree,

but the Nehardeans said

not so:

One who sells a palm tree to his fellow

[one who sells even a single palm tree to his fellow]

acquires for him

the ground beneath the tree

from the tree’s base

[the place where the tree is seated]

to the depths

[the abyss], insofar as the seller may not dig beneath it [Tosafot Bava Batra 38; and Rashbam there explained it differently], and the same applies to consecration?

And we answer:

Was it not stated concerning it

concerning the Nehardeans [in Bava Batra 38a] that this law applies only

when

the purchaser

on the basis of a claim

that the seller mentioned ground together with it in his sale; but without this, no! And Rav Pappa is speaking of a case in which he did not mention ground.

We learned in the Mishna:

And with an acquired field he gives its value.

The Sages taught:

It is written in the passage concerning the consecration of an acquired field: “And if it is the field of his acquisition, which is not from the field of his ancestral heritage, and he consecrates it to the Lord. And the priest shall calculate for him the amount of the valuation until the year of the Jubilee, and he shall give the valuation on that day, holy to the Lord.”

“According to the amount”

[“the amount of the valuation”]

what does it teach

[Bach]:

Since it was said

concerning one who consecrates an ancestral-heritage field: “And your valuation shall be according to its seed,

a homer of barley seed at fifty silver shekels,” could it be that an acquired field is also so,

that it is redeemed at this fixed rate?

The verse therefore says: “amount”,

which is the count of the field’s price, namely, its value; and the priest calculates for him the value of the field, from the year in which he redeems it until the year of the Jubilee.

Rabbi Eliezer says: It is stated here,

concerning one who consecrates an acquired field:

“And he shall calculate”

for him the priest the amount of the valuation,

and it is stated there,

concerning one who consecrates an ancestral-heritage field: “And if after the Jubilee he consecrates his field,

‘and he shall calculate’

for him the priest the money” and so on, as a gzera shava, and to teach:

Just as there,

concerning one who consecrates an ancestral-heritage field,

there is a fixed amount, so too here,

concerning one who consecrates an acquired field,

there is a fixed amount,

namely, fifty silver shekels.

It was raised as a dilemma for them: The Sages

who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer and hold that an acquired field is redeemed according to its value—do

they have a gzera shava

of “and he shall calculate—and he shall calculate,” to derive an acquired field from an ancestral-heritage field,

and they remove it

the gzera shava not with regard to redemption by a fixed amount, but

for the fifth

—that even with an acquired field the consecrator adds a fifth, just as he adds with an ancestral-heritage field? [It follows that they disagree with Rabbi Eliezer in two matters: a. an acquired field is redeemed according to its value; b. a fifth is added with an acquired field.]

Or perhaps, they do not have a gzera shava

at all,

and they do not have a fifth

with an acquired field [and in this they do not disagree with Rabbi Eliezer]?

And we resolve it:

Rava said:

It is reasonable: they do not have

the Sages

a gzera shava

at all [and they agree with Rabbi Eliezer that a fifth is not added with an acquired field].

Since the Merciful One specified

that a

fifth is added concerning an ancestral-heritage field and concerning one who consecrates his house

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

they are

an ancestral-heritage field and one who consecrates a house

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

[and Tosafot here and below, 15a, explained in several ways how this teaches that we do not derive a gzera shava from it].

And we explain:

And according to the one who says

that two verses that come as one

do teach,

there is nevertheless no fifth according to the Sages with an acquired field:

Since the Merciful One specified a fifth with the second tithe

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

and with a pure animal

that was consecrated for the altar and became blemished [as it is written: “And if it is any impure animal”—the verse speaks of a blemished animal, which is impure for sacrifice, and the verse teaches you that unblemished sacred animals do not leave the domain of the profane through redemption unless they become blemished—Rashi in the Pentateuch—“which they shall not bring as an offering to the Lord” and so on. “And if he surely redeems it, he shall add its fifth to your valuation”],

and with an impure animal

that was consecrated for the maintenance of the Temple [as it is written: “And if it is an impure animal and he redeems it according to your valuation”—here it speaks of one who consecrates an impure animal for the maintenance of the Temple, Rashi in the Pentateuch—“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!

A beraita was taught in accordance with Rava

that the consecrator does not add a fifth with the consecration of an acquired field,

but not for his reason,

that they are several verses that come as one and do not teach, but for another reason!

For it was taught:

It is written in the passage concerning the redemption of an acquired field from the consecration:

“According to the amount”

[“And the priest shall calculate for him the “amount” of the valuation and so on]

“Amount” means nothing other than money

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

and so it says:

[Numbers 31]:

“And you shall raise a ‘tax’ for the Lord

and so on, one person from five hundred” [for he gave honestly, one person from five hundred, and did not suffer a loss—Rabbenu Gershom].

Could he add a fifth? The verse therefore says: “

the

amount of the valuation,” the verse compares it to valuations,

namely, “your valuation”;

just as with valuations one does not add

a person who valued himself or his fellow

a fifth, so too with an acquired field he does not add a fifth!

Mishna:

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

with an ox accustomed to gore that killed the slave, leniency and stringency,

how so?

Whether it killed

the ox

the handsomest of slaves,

whose value was one hundred maneh,

or the ugliest of slaves,

whose value was only five sela,

the owner gives

of the ox a fine to the owner of the slave

thirty sela,

and it follows that we are lenient with the handsome one and stringent with the ugly one.

If it killed

the ox accustomed to gore

a free man, he gives

the

value

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

If the ox injured

the

one

slave,

and the one

free man, but did not kill them,

the owner gives

of the ox

full

damage,

according to the value of the slave.

Gemara:

And they infer precisely from the Mishna: “With regard to an ox forewarned, etc., if it injured this one and that one, he pays full damages”:

with regard to a forewarned ox, yes,

he pays full damages! But

with regard to an innocuous ox,

which has not yet gored three times and been forewarned in court, and which injured a person,

he does not

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

And if so,

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

an ox

that is innocuous and injured a person,

and the person also injured the ox, and the court assessed the injury that the ox inflicted upon the person as greater than the injury that the person inflicted upon the ox,

the owner of the ox pays

the owner of the ox

for the difference,

this

as full damages,

and this means that Rabbi Akiva holds 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

Rabbi Akiva,

it is understandable that the Mishna stated “with regard to an ox forewarned,” and indeed, in this case, when the ox injured a person,

the same law is that even an innocuous ox also

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

since he needed to teach in the latter clause

of the first clause: “that it

killed

the

slave”

and

“killed a freeman,”

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

as it is only with regard to a forewarned ox that you find

that there is an obligation for a fine and ransom,

with regard to an innocuous ox you do not find

an obligation for the fine of a slave and the ransom of a freeman, [as it is written with regard to an innocuous ox: “And 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 they expound in Bava Kamma: “clear of the value of a slave,” and “clear of half the ransom”]

therefore he teaches “

with regard to an ox

forewarned.”

Mishna:

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

with regard to one who violates

a virgin

and with regard to one who seduces

a virgin

a leniency and a stringency—for example:

One who violates and seduces

or seduces

the most distinguished daughter of the priesthood and the least distinguished daughter of Israel pays

a fine for the violation and the benefit of intercourse

fifty sela,

and it emerges that we are lenient with regard to the most distinguished daughter of the priesthood and stringent with regard to the least distinguished daughter of Israel.

And the humiliation and the defect

[that she was a virgin, and its defect], he must pay in addition to the fifty silver pieces! [According to Tosafot Yom Tov and Tiferet Yisrael.] And the humiliation that he pays is

all according to the one who humiliates

the humiliation caused by an average person who humiliates is more severe than that caused by a disreputable person, and less than that caused by an important person,

and the one humiliated

according to his importance is his humiliation, [Rashi, Ketubot 40a]. And the defect: they assess how much a person wishes to pay more for a virgin slave woman than for one who has had intercourse, when he wishes to marry her to his slave, from whom he derives satisfaction.

Gemara:

And there is a difficulty with the Mishna, which says that he pays, in addition to the fifty sela that the Torah stated, also humiliation and defect:

why? Let us say: The Merciful One said fifty sela

as it is written: “And the man who lies with her shall give the father of the young woman fifty silver pieces”

for all

for every

matter,

and humiliation and defect are included within the fifty?

And we answer:

Rav Zeira said:

If you say that he does not pay humiliation separately,

they will say: One who possessed the daughter of kings —

fifty

he pays,

one who possessed the daughter of commoners—

he too

fifty

pays! And where is the distinction between them?! It is necessarily the case that with regard to humiliation there is a distinction between the daughter of kings and the daughter of commoners. And since it is demonstrated that there are additional payments besides the fifty sela [and Scripture did not mention them here because humiliation also exists in the case of other injuries], defect too must be paid, and defect is damages that he pays in the case of other injuries.

And we object:

Abaye said to

Rav Zeira:

if so, with regard to

an ox that killed the

slave,

for which the owner of the ox pays thirty sela,

they will also say:

For

a slave who pierces pearls, thirty

he pays, and for

a slave who performs needlework

a tailor, one who sews,

thirty

he pays! Where is the distinction between them?! Rather, it is necessarily the case that although there is reason to distinguish between them, nevertheless the Torah provided an equal fixed amount, so that we would not need to assess each time. And with regard to one who violates and one who seduces, we can likewise say that humiliation is included within the fifty, and although there is reason to distinguish, the Torah provided an equal fixed amount, so that we would not need a court assessment.

Rather, Rav Zeira said

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