Arakhin 28

Chapter 28

א תלמוד לומר (ויקרא כז, כב) אם את שדה מקנתו אשר לא משדה אחוזתו שדה שאינה שדה אחוזה יצתה זו שהיא שדה אחוזה

1 - Because the text states: 'And if he sanctify unto the Lord a field which he hath bought, which is not the field of his possession', i.e., a field which is not a field of possession, excluding one that is his field of possession. Now according to R'Judah and R'Simeon, even if he dedicated it and his father died subsequently, it is still considered a field of possession. What is the reason therefore?

ב אילו לרבי יהודה ולרבי שמעון אפי' הקדישה ואחר כך מת אב שדה אחוזה הויא מאי טעמא אי משום קרא קרא לכדרבי מאיר הוא דאתא

2 It is on account of th Scriptural text?1

ג אלא לאו משום דאזיל בתר פדיון

3 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.');">2

ד אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק רבי יהודה ורבי שמעון קרא אשכחו ודרוש

4 Rather must you say because one is guided by the circumstances at the redeeming!3

ה אם כן לכתוב רחמנא אם את שדה מקנתו אשר לא אחוזתו מאי משדה שדה שאינה ראויה להיות שדה אחוזה:

5 Said R'Nahman B'Isaac: R'Judah and R'Simeon found a Scriptural verse and expounded it. If it were so [as R'Meir holds], the Divine Law should have written: 'If he sanctify.

ו אמר רב פפא הקדיש טרשין פודן בשווין מאי טעמא בית זרע אמר רחמנא והני לאו בני זריעה נינהו

6 a field which he hath bought, which is not his possession'. But since it says: Which is not of the field of his possession, [it means:] A field which is not fit4 to be the field of his possession.

ז לא גאלן יוצאין ביובל מאי טעמא שדה אמר רחמנא כל דהו

7 R'Papa said: If one dedicates stony ground. he must redeem it at its value.

ח מכר טרשין נגאלין פחות משתי שנים מאי טעמא (ויקרא כה, טו) מספר שני תבואות אמר רחמנא והאי לאו בני תבואה נינהו לא גאלן חוזרת לבעלים ביובל מאי טעמא (ויקרא כה, כז) ושב לאחוזתו אמר רחמנא והאי נמי אחוזה היא

8 Why? - The Divine Law speaks of a 'field for the sowing', and this ground cannot be sown. If he has not redeemed it. then in the jubilee year, it goes forth to the priests.5 Why? - Because the Divine Law speaks of a 'field'.

ט הקדיש אילנות פודה בשוויהן מאי טעמא {ויקרא כז } בית זרע אמר רחמנא ולא אילנות לא גאלן אין יוצאין לכהנים ביובל (ויקרא כז, כא) והיה השדה אמר רחמנא ולא אילנות

9 no matter of what kind. 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.');">6 Why? 'According to the number of the years of the crops'.

י מכר אילנות אין נגאלין פחות משתי שנים מאי טעמא שני תבואות אמר רחמנא והני בני תבואות נינהו לא גאלן אין חוזרת לבעלים ביובל מאי טעמא ושב לאחוזתו אמר רחמנא ולא אילנות

10 says the Divine Law, and it [stony ground] is incapable of having crops. If he has not redeemed it, it returns in the jubilee year to the owners. Why? And he shall return into his possession,7

יא אמר מר הקדיש אילנות פודה בשווין אמאי וליקדשו אגב ארעייהו וליפרקוה אגב ארעייהו

11 the Divine Law says, and this, too, is possession. If he dedicates trees he redeems them at their worth. What is the reason? - The Divine Law says: 'a field for sowing', but not trees. If he did not redeem them they do not go forth in the jubilee year to the priest.

יב וכי תימא אילנות אקדיש ארעא לא אקדיש והאמרי נהרדעי מאן דמזבן ליה דקלא לחבריה קני ליה משיפולא ועד תהומא לאו מי איתמר עלה בבא מחמת טענה:

12 What is the reason? - The Divine Law says, 'and the field shall be', but not trees. If he sold trees they are not redeemed before two years. What is the reason? - 'According to the number of the years of the crops', says the Divine Law, and these are productive of crops. If he has not redeemed them they do not return to the owner at Jubilee. What is the reason? - 'And he shall return unto his possession says the Divine Law, but not trees.

יג שדה מקנה נותן שוויו: תנו רבנן {ויקרא כז } במכסת מה בא ללמוד לפי שנאמר (ויקרא כז, טז) זרע חומר שעורים בחמשים שקל כסף יכול אף שדה מקנה כן תלמוד לומר מכסת

13 The Master said: If he dedicates trees he redeems them at their worth [etc.]. But why? - Let them become sacred [property] through the ground and be redeemed together with it and return to their owners [at Jubilee] together with the ground? 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.');">8 to the furthest depth? - But it was taught in connection therewith: Only if he came with such a claim.9 BUT IF IT WAS A FIELD WHICH HE HATH BOUGHT HE MUST PAY WHAT IT IS ACTUALLY WORTH: Our Rabbis taught: The worth,10 what does that teach us? 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'.11

יד רבי אליעזר אומר נאמר כאן {ויקרא כז } וחשב ונאמר להלן וחשב מה להלן דבר קצוב אף כאן דבר קצוב

14 R'Eliezer says: Here it is said [The priest] shall reckon,10 and above it is said: [The priest] shall reckon.12

טו איבעיא להו רבנן אית להו גזירה שוה ומפקין ליה לחומש או דלמא לית להו גזירה שוה ולית להו לחומש

15 Just as there a definite [sum], so here, also, a definite [sum]. The following question was asked: Do the Rabbis accept this gezerah shawah,13

טז אמר רבא מסתברא לית להו גזירה שוה מדגלי רחמנ' חומש גבי שדה אחוזה וגבי מקדיש ביתו הוו ליה שני כתובין הבאין כאחד וכל שני כתובין הבאין כאחד אין מלמדין

16 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.');">14 or do they not accept this gezerah shawah and neither the fifth? - Said Raba: It seems logical that they do not accept this gezerah shawah. 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;15

יז ולמ"ד מלמדין מדגלי רחמנא חומש במעשר בבהמה טהורה ובבהמה טמאה הוה ליה טובא ואין מלמדין

17 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.');">16

יח תניא כוותיה דרבא ולא מטעמיה תניא {ויקרא כ״ז:כ״ג } במכסת הערכך הקישו הכתוב לערכין מה ערכין אין מוסיף חומש אף שדה מקנה אין מוסיף חומש:

18 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. 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.');">17 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.

יט <big>מתני׳</big> בשור המועד שהמית את העבד להקל ולהחמיר כיצד אחד שהמית את הנאה שבעבדים ואת הכעור שבעבדים נותן שלשים סלע המית בן חורין נותן שוויו חבל בזה ובזה נותן נזק שלם:

19 <big>MISHNAH: </big>THE LAW CONCERNING A MU'AD OX THAT HAS KILLED A SLAVE,18 IS AT TIMES IN THE DIRECTION OF LENIENCY, AT OTHERS IN THE DIRECTION OF STRINGENCY. HOW IS THAT? IT IS ALL ONE WHETHER IT KILLED THE FINEST SLAVE OR THE UGLIEST SLAVE, HE MUST PAY THIRTY SELA'S.

כ <big>גמ׳</big> במועד אין בתם לא לימא מתני' דלא כרבי עקיבא דתנן רבי עקיבא אומר אף תם שחבל באדם משלם במותר נזק שלם

20 IF IT KILLED A FREE MAN HE MUST PAY WHAT HE IS WORTH. IF IT WOUNDED HIM. WHETHER THE ONE OR THE OTHER, HE MUST PAY THE DAMAGE IN FULL.19

כא אפילו תימא רבי עקיבא הוא הדין דאפילו תם נמי ואיידי דקא בעי למתנא סיפא המית עבד המית בן חורין דבמועד הוא דמשכחת לה בתם לא משכחת לה משום הכי קתני מועד:

21 <big>GEMARA: </big>This20 then applies only to a mu'ad,21

כב <big>מתני׳</big> באונס ובמפתה להקל ולהחמיר כיצד אחד שאנס ופיתה את גדולה שבכהונה ואת הקטנה שבישראל נותן חמשים סלעים והבושת והפגם הכל לפי המבייש והמתבייש:

22 but not to a tam?22 Shall we say that our Mishnah will not be in accord with R'Akiba?

כג <big>גמ׳</big> אמאי אימא חמשים סלעים אמר רחמנא מכל מילי

23 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.');">23 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. <big>MISHNAH: </big>'THE LAW OF THE VIOLATOR AND SEDUCER IS AT TIMES IN THE DIRECTION OF LENIENCY, AT OTHERS IN THE DIRECTION OF STRINGENCY.'

כד אמר רב זעירא יאמרו בעל בת מלכים חמשים בעל בת הדיוטות חמשים

24 HOW IS THAT? 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.24

כה א"ל אביי א"ה גבי עבד נמי יאמרו עבד נוקב מרגלית שלשים עבד עושה מעשה מחט שלשים אלא אמר רב זעירא

25 BUT COMPENSATION FOR SHAMING AND FOR BLEMISH IS IN ACCORD WITH THE [CIRCUMSTANCES] OF HIM WHO SHAMES AND OF HER WHO SUFFERS THAT SHAME.25 <big>GEMARA: </big>But why? 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.');">26 Rather said R'Ze'ira:

Previous Chapter Next Chapter