Arakhin 28
אלא לאו משום דאזיל בתר פדיון
But that is in favour of R'Meir's view!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text quoted may not mean to exclude a field which he has dedicated before the father died; rather does it support the interpretation of R. Meir: to exclude the case where his father died and he afterwards dedicated it.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק רבי יהודה ורבי שמעון קרא אשכחו ודרוש
Rather must you say because one is guided by the circumstances at the redeeming!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since at the redemption the father was dead, it is a field of possession.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
הקדיש טרשין פודן בשווין מאי טעמא
But since it says: Which is not of the field of his possession, [it means:] A field which is not fit<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The argument is based on the mem privative. v. B.B. Sonc. ed., p. 285ff notes.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
{ויקרא כז } בית זרע אמר רחמנא ולא אילנות
If he sold stony ground, it can be redeemed even within two years.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Normally a field cannot be redeemed before two years (v. infra 29b) . The stony ground is a field and therefore falls into some part of the law, but since it is an abnormal field, it is not affected by such regulations as apply to the usual type. Lev. XXV. 15 covers the ordinary field, bearing crop.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
{ויקרא כז } במכסת מה בא ללמוד
And if you were to argue: He dedicated trees, but not ground, but did not the Nehardeans say: If one sells to his neighbour a [date] palm, the latter acquires it from the base<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And can therefore plant a new one when this one withered, B.B. 37b, which teaching indicates that he who owns the tree owns the land on which it stands, whence the dedication of a tree implied the dedication of such ground.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
לפי שנאמר
to the furthest depth? - But it was taught in connection therewith: Only if he came with such a claim.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he had bought the ground with the tree. That renders it an exceptional case, not a general rule, v. ibid.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
(ויקרא כז, טז) זרע חומר שעורים בחמשים שקל כסף יכול אף שדה מקנה כן
BUT IF IT WAS A FIELD WHICH HE HATH BOUGHT HE MUST PAY WHAT IT IS ACTUALLY WORTH: Our Rabbis taught: The worth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 23.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
מכסת
Since it is said: 'Fifty shekels of silver every piece of the field sufficient for the sowing of a homer of barley', I might have thought the same applied also to a field which he bought, therefore the text states 'the worth'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., only the actual worth not the amount imposed by the Torah on the field of possession.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
נאמר כאן {ויקרא כז } וחשב ונאמר להלן וחשב מה להלן דבר קצוב אף כאן דבר קצוב
and above it is said: [The priest] shall reckon.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With reference to a field of possession: Lev. XXVII, 18: arguing hence from analogy of expression, the fixed sum is fifty shekels.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
רבנן אית להו גזירה שוה ומפקין ליה לחומש או דלמא לית להו גזירה שוה ולית להו לחומש
The following question was asked: Do the Rabbis accept this gezerah shawah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the inference based on the similarity of expression. v. Glos.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
אמר רבא
and hence they infer also the additional fifth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The consequence of the inference from analogy would be that with regard to other items too, hence with regard to the fifth additional in case of redemption, a field which is bought shall be governed by the rules applicable to a field of possession.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
מדגלי רחמנ' חומש גבי שדה אחוזה וגבי מקדיש ביתו הוו ליה שני כתובין הבאין כאחד וכל שני כתובין הבאין כאחד אין מלמדין
For the Divine Law revealed [taught] concerning the fifth, both in connection with a field of possession, and also with one who dedicated his house;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XXVII, 14.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
ולמ"ד מלמדין מדגלי רחמנא חומש במעשר בבהמה טהורה ובבהמה טמאה הוה ליה טובא ואין מלמדין
we have thus two Scriptural verses teaching the same thing and 'whenever two Scriptural verses teach the same thing, they do not serve as illustrations for other cases'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they do not teach'. The Torah does not repeat itself. A general law would be stated once. The very fact that it appears twice indicates that it applies only to those detailed situations and that no general rule may be inferred from them for others.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
תניא כוותיה דרבא ולא מטעמיה
But what according to him who says 'they do serve as illustrations for other cases'? - Since the Divine Law revealed about a fifth in connection with the tithe of pure and impure cattle, it is a teaching occurring frequently, and hence they do not serve as illustrations in other cases.
תניא
It was taught in accord with Raba, but not for the reason he advanced:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His argument came from the fact that the rule was stated too often to be considered one generally applicable, whereas this teaching is based on an analogy with valuation, as explained.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
{ויקרא כז } במכסת הערכך הקישו הכתוב לערכין מה ערכין אין מוסיף חומש אף שדה מקנה אין מוסיף חומש:
It was taught: 'The worth of thy valuation', herewith Scripture compares it to valuation: just as no fifth is added in connection with valuation, so no fifth is added in connection with a field that he has bought.
<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> בשור המועד שהמית את העבד להקל ולהחמיר כיצד
<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>THE LAW CONCERNING A MU'AD OX THAT HAS KILLED A SLAVE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 29. The owner must pay the damage caused by his ox, for which he is responsible.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
אפילו תימא רבי עקיבא הוא הדין דאפילו תם נמי ואיידי דקא בעי למתנא סיפא
<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling in the last clause that full damage must be paid by the owner in case the ox has wounded either a free man or slave.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמאי
For it was taught: R'Akiba said, Even with a tam which injured a man, the larger<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the difference (between the two damages) '. If ox and man injured each other, then if the owner of the ox had not been forewarned, he need pay but one half of the greater damage. R. Akiba held he must pay in full, even though the ox was a tam, v. B.K. 33a.');"><sup>23</sup></span>
אימא
damage must be paid in full! - You can even say that it is in accord with R'Akiba, for it applies to a tam too; but since he wishes to teach in the latter part the case where IT KILLED A SLAVE OR A FREE MAN, which applies only to a mu'ad, but not to a tam, therefore it speaks of mu'ad.
בעל בת מלכים חמשים בעל בת הדיוטות חמשים
IT IS ALL ONE WHETHER A MAN VIOLATED OR SEDUCED A WOMAN FROM AMONG THE NOBLEST OF THE PRIESTLY STOCK OR THE HUMBLEST IN ISRAEL, HE MUST PAY FIFTY SELA'S.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Deut. XXII, 29.');"><sup>24</sup></span>
א"ל אביי
BUT COMPENSATION FOR SHAMING AND FOR BLEMISH IS IN ACCORD WITH THE [CIRCUMSTANCES] OF HIM WHO SHAMES AND OF HER WHO SUFFERS THAT SHAME.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In addition to the fifty sela's the violator as well as the seducer must pay damages for the shame and the blemish caused. V. Keth. 40a.');"><sup>25</sup></span>
עבד נוקב מרגלית שלשים עבד עושה מעשה מחט שלשים
Perhaps the Divine Law means: Fifty sela's for all the things together? - R'Ze'ira replied: People would say, How should one who has lain with a king's daughter pay fifty, and one who has lain with the daughter of a commoner pay fifty! - Abaye replied to him: If that be right, one could argue in the case of a slave too: why for a slave who perforates pearls thirty, and for one who does needlework also thirty?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Just as the shame suffered by a king's daughter is greater than that suffered by one of common descent, so is the damage suffered in the loss of a skilled slave much greater than that suffered in the loss of an unskilled one.');"><sup>26</sup></span>