Arakhin 27

מלתא אגב אורחיה קמשמע לן כדרב יהודה אמר רב דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב

[our Mishnah] informs us incidentally<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By not teaching 'the fairest among Canaanites', because one should not attribute any beauty to those indulging in the cruelty and immorality of idolaters.');">¹</span>

אסור לאדם שיאמר כמה נאה כנעני זה

of a teaching in accord with Rab Judah, Who said in the name of Rab: One should not say, How beautiful is this Canaanite!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This was Rab Judah's teaching (v. A.Z. 20a) . for which the Mishnah offers authoritative endorsement by implication.');">²</span>

וליתני

Then let it teach: 'Whether a man has dedicated the fairest in Israel or the ugliest among Canaanites'?

את הנאה שבישראל ואת הכעור שבכנענים

It deals with one nation, not With two nations.

בחד אומה קמיירי בתרי אומה לא מיירי

But does it not?

ולא

Surely it teaches: 'Of the noblest among the priests, and the humblest in Israel'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 15a.');">³</span>

והא קתני

- There it is one nation, except that the priests are holier.

הגדולה שבכהונה ואת הקטנה שבישראל

And if you like, say: Since it is about to teach, in the second part the Mishnah, concerning a field of possession which applies only to Israel, not to idolaters, because they do not possess fields [by inheritance in the Land],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An idolater could not, by Biblical law, redeem his field of possession for the payment of fifty shekels; he would have to repay its value.');">⁴</span>

התם חד אומה הוא אלא מקדיש הוא דקדישי כהנים טפי

therefore it teaches also [in the first part of the Mishnah] with reference to Israel alone.

ואיבעית אימא

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>'THE LAW OF THE FIELD OF POSSESSION IS AT TIMES MORE LENIENT, AT OTHERS MORE STRINGENT.

איידי דקא בעי למתני סיפא שדה אחוזה דבישראל הוא דמשכחת לה בעובד כוכבים לא משכחת לה דלאו בני אחוזה נינהו משום הכי קתני לה בישראל:

HOW IS THAT?

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> בשדה אחוזה להקל ולהחמיר כיצד

IT IS ALL ONE WHETHER A MAN DEDICATES A FIELD IN THE SANDY PLAIN OF MAHUZ<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mahuz may be the term tech. for 'place', 'circle', or the name of an unidentified locality. 'The desert, sandy wilderness of Mahuz' would be a good contrast to the rich, developed gardens of Sebaste, the city built by Herod on the ruins of Samaria. According to Rashi the reference in Mahuz is to a field in the environs of a town the ground of which is continually trodden on and thus has become sterile.');">⁵</span>

אחד המקדיש בחולת המחוז ואחד המקדיש בפרדיסות סבסטי נותן זרע חומר שעורים בחמשים שקל כסף ובשדה מקנה נותן את שוויו

OR IN THE GARDENS OF SEBASTE, [IF HE WOULD REDEEM IT] HE MUST PAY FIFTY SHEKELS OF SILVER FOR [EVERY PART OF THE FIELD SUFFICIENT FOR] THE SOWING OF A HOMER OF BARLEY,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 16. A field sufficient for the sowing of a 'homer of barley', according to 'Er. ');">⁶</span>

רבי אליעזר אומר

BUT IF IT WAS A FIELD WHICH HE HATH BOUGHT',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XXVII, 22.');">⁷</span>

אחד שדה מקנה ואחד שדה אחוזה

HE MUST PAY WHAT IT IS WORTH.

מה בין שדה אחוזה לשדה מקנה

R'ELIEZER SAYS: IT IS ALL THE SAME WHETHER IT BE A FIELD OF POSSESSION OR ONE THAT HE HATH BOUGHT.

שבשדה אחוזה הוא נותן חומש ובשדה מקנה אינו נותן חומש:

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FIELD OF POSSESSION AND THAT WHICH HE HATH BOUGHT LIES THEREIN: FOR A FIELD OF POSSESSION HE MUST PAY THE [ADDED] FIFTH, WHEREAS FOR A FIELD THAT HE HATH BOUGHT HE NEED NOT PAY THE ADDED FIFTH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the field of possession as well as for the field bought, the price of redemption is fifty silver pieces for every part of the field sufficient for the sowing of a homer of barley. But with the field of possession, the owner must pay the additional fifth, whereas with a field bought he need but pay what it is worth.');">⁸</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב הונא

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>R'Huna said: If a man had dedicated a field full of trees, he must, when he comes to redeem them, redeem the trees for what they are worth, and then redeem the ground at [the rate of] fifty shekels of silver for [every part of the field sufficient for] 'the sowing of a homer of barley'.

הקדיש שדה מליאה אילנות כשהוא פודן פודה אילנות בשווין וחוזר ופודה קרקע בית זרע חומר שעורים בחמשים שקל כסף

We see thus that R'Huna tolds one Who dedicated, dedicates with a generous eye.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He dedicated the tract and in addition thereto, the trees, hence when he comes to redeem, he must redeem the tract after having redeemed the trees.');">⁹</span>

אלמא קסבר רב הונא

R'Nahman raised the following objection to R'Huna: IT IS ALL ONE WHETHER A MAN DEDICATES A FIELD IN THE SANDY PLAIN OF MAHUZ OR IN THE GARDENS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The gardens of Sebaste were planted vineyards, nevertheless the Mishnah states they can be redeemed with fifty silver pieces etc., which shows that the trees were redeemed with them, thus disproving the view of R. Huna. The latter says the sum mentioned refers only to the field; as for the trees, they must be redeemed at their value, the redemption of one following the other.');">¹⁰</span>

אדם מקדיש בעין יפה מקדיש

OF SEBASTE, HE MUST PAY FIFTY SHEKELS OF SILVER FOR [EVERY PART OF THE FIELD SUFFICIENT FOR] THE SOWING OF A HOMER OF BARLEY? - He answered: He [the Tanna] means: Such as are fit to be gardens.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without being actually planted with trees.');">¹¹</span>

איתיביה רב נחמן לרב הונא

He raised a further objection: 'Field for the sowing':<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reference is probably to Lev. XXVII, 16, although the word 'field' (lit., 'house') does not occur in the Biblical text.');">¹²</span>

אחד המקדיש בחולת המחוז ואחד המקדיש בפרדיסות סבסטי נותן בית זרע חומר שעורים בחמשים שקל כסף

from this I know only [the rule] in the case of a fiel for sowing.

א"ל

whence do we know it concerning a field of vines, or a field of reeds, or a field of trees?

ראויה לפרדיסות קאמינא

Therefore Scripture says: Field,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid.');">¹³</span>

איתיביה

i.e., as long as it is a field! - R'Huna replied: Here, too, he redeems, and then redeems again!

בית זרע אין לי אלא בית זרע שדה גפנים ושדה קנים ושדה אילנות מנין

He raised a further objection: If one dedicates three trees of a plantation in which ten were planted in a field sufficient for the sowing of one se'ah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One se'ah is the thirtieth part of a homer; the field corresponding would contain 2,500 square cubits.');">¹⁴</span>

ת"ל

then he also dedicates the soil as well as the trees between them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Small trees.');">¹⁵</span>

שדה מ"מ

When he redeems them, he redeems them at the rate of fifty shekels of silver for every piece of the field sufficient for the sowing of a homer of barley.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This would be contra R. Huna.');">¹⁶</span>

אמר ליה

If they are planted more thickly or less thickly than this, or if he dedicates them one after the other, then he does not dedicate thereby either the soil or the tree between them;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The usual way of planting trees is to plant ten in a field sufficient for the sowing of one se'ah. The whole tract is needed for these trees, hence if they are dedicated, the tract and the small trees between them are dedicated too. If the trees are planted either more or less thickly, only the trees are considered dedicated, and only they need be redeemed.');">¹⁷</span>

ה"נ פודה וחוזר ופודה

therefore, when he redeems them he redeems the trees at their value; and even more, if he first dedicates his trees<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Planted more or less thickly.');">¹⁸</span>

איתיביה

and afterwards dedicates the ground, when he comes to redeem them, he must redeem the trees at their value, and then he must redeem the ground again, at the rate of fifty shekels of silver for [every part of the field sufficient for] the sowing of a homer of barley!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.B. 72a.');">¹⁹</span>

הקדיש שלשה אילנות ממטע עשרה לבית סאה הרי זה הקדיש את הקרקע ואת האילנות שביניהם כשהוא פודה פודה בית זרע חומר שעורים בחמשים שקל כסף

And, if you were to say: Here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the first clause from which an objection is raised against R. Huna.');">²⁰</span>

פחות מיכן או יתר על כן או שהקדישן בזה אחר זה ה"ז לא הקדיש לא את הקרקע ולא את האילנות שביניהם

too, he redeems and then must redeem again; but surely since the second clause expressly mentions 'he must redeem and redeem again', it follows that in the first clause this is not so! Rather, say: According to whom is this [teaching]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.B. 72a.');">¹⁹</span>

ולא עוד אלא אפי' הקדיש אילנותיו ואח"כ הקדיש קרקע כשהוא פודה פודה את האילנות בשוויהן וחוזר ופודה קרקע בית זרע חומר שעורים בחמשים שקל כסף

It is in accord with R'Simeon, who holds that one who dedicates does so 'with an ungenerous eye', for it was taught: If one dedicates a field, he dedicates the whole of it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All that it contains. (9) Which are old and large. and derive their sustenance from the ground more than any other tree, v. B.B., Sonc. ed., p. 282 notes.');">²¹</span>

וכי תימא

R'Simeon says: He does not dedicate anything [together with the field] save the full grown carob tree and the cropped sycamore tree.

הכא נמי פודה וחוזר ופודה הא מדסיפא פודה וחוזר ופודה מכלל דרישא לא

If this be in accord with R'Simeon, consider the second part: 'And not only that, but if he dedicates the trees and afterwards the ground, when he comes to redeem, he must redeem the trees at their value, and then must redeem the ground again at the rate of fifty shekels of silver for [every part of the field sufficient for] the sowing of a homer of barley'! Now if it were in accord with R'Simeon, one should be guided only by the circumstances<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the moment of the redemption the trees are on the ground, and the question as to whether they were dedicated together with or after the tract is then irrelevant.');">²²</span>

אלא הא מני

at the time of redemption, and hence they should be redeemed [automatically] with the ground, for we have heard from R'Simeon to be guided by circumstances at the time of redemption.

ר' שמעון היא דאמר

For it was taught: Whence do we know that if one buys a field from his father and dedicates it, and the father died afterwards, that that field is considered a 'field of possession'?

מקדיש בעין רעה מקדיש דתניא

Because the text states: And if he sanctify unto the Lord a field which he hath bought, which is not of the field of his possession,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 22.');">²³</span>

המקדיש את השדה הקדיש את כולה רש"א

i.e., a field which could not become a field of possession,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he bought it from a stranger, from whom he would not inherit it.');">²⁴</span>

לא הקדיש אלא חרוב המורכב וסדן השקמה

that excludes [such a field as] this which would have become his field of possession.

אי ר' שמעון אימא סיפא

This is the view of R'Judah and R'Simeon, R'Meir said: Whence do we know that if one buys a field from his father, and his father died, and he thereupon dedicated it, that it is considered a field of possession?

ולא עוד אלא אפי' הקדיש אילנותיו ואח"כ הקדיש קרקע כשהוא פודה פודה את האילנות בשוויהן וחוזר ופודה בית זרע חומר שעורים בחמשים שקל כסף

ואי רבי שמעון ליזיל בתר פדיון וליפרקו אגב ארעייהו דהא שמעינן ליה לרבי שמעון דאזיל בתר פדיון

דתניא

מנין ללוקח שדה מאביו והקדישה ואח"כ מת אביו מנין שתהא לפניו כשדה אחוזה

ת"ל

(ויקרא כז, כב) אם את שדה מקנתו אשר לא משדה אחוזתו שדה שאינה ראויה להיות שדה אחוזה יצתה זו שראויה להיות שדה אחוזה דברי רבי יהודה ור"ש

ר' מאיר אומר

מנין ללוקח שדה מאביו ומת אביו ואחר כך הקדישה מנין שתהא לפניו כשדה אחוזה