Talmud - Arachin 14b ערכין י״ד ב׳

The verse states with regard to a purchased field: “And if he sanctifies to the Lord a field that he has bought, which is not of his ancestral field” (Leviticus 27:22). The verse is referring specifically to a field that is not an ancestral field at the time of its consecration. This requirement excludes this field, as currently, after the death of the father, it is an ancestral field.

The Gemara analyzes the baraita. That is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, whereas according to Rabbi Yehuda and according to Rabbi Shimon it is considered an ancestral field even if he consecrated the field and afterward his father dies. What is the reason for this opinion? If you suggest it is due to the verse, that cannot be, as the verse comes to teach the halakha that was stated in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, i.e., it is referring to a case where the father died before he consecrated the field, as Rabbi Meir explained.

Rather, is it not due to the fact that he follows the status of the field at the time of the redemption? Since the father died before the son redeemed the field it is considered an ancestral field in the possession of the Temple treasury. Similarly, if one first consecrates the trees and afterward the field, he should redeem them both together, since at the time of the redemption they are both consecrated. Since this ruling is not in accordance with the baraita that states that the trees and field are redeemed separately, evidently the baraita cannot be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that this source does not contradict Rav Huna’s claim that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. The reason is that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon do not, in fact, maintain that one follows the status of the field at the time of the redemption. Rather, they found a verse and expounded it.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak explains Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning: If so, that when one consecrated the field and his father died afterward, it is not considered an ancestral field, let the Merciful One write in the Torah: And if he sanctifies to the Lord a field that he has bought, which is not his ancestral, i.e., the verse could have omitted the repetition of the phrase “of his field.” What does the Torah mean by stressing “of his field”? This teaches that only a field that is not fit to be an ancestral field at the time he consecrated it is redeemed for its value. But if he consecrated a field that he would inherit in the future, it is redeemed in the manner of an ancestral field.

§ Rav Pappa says: If one consecrated fields that are rocky [terashin] and unsuitable for planting, he redeems them by their value, not as ancestral fields. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? The Merciful One states that one redeems an area fit for sowing of a ḥomer of barley seed for fifty silver shekels (see Leviticus 27:16), and these fields are not fit for sowing.

But if he did not redeem these fields before the Jubilee Year, they go to the priests in the Jubilee Year, like ancestral fields. What is the reason? The Merciful One states: “And if he will not redeem the field, or if he has sold the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed anymore. But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy to the Lord, as a field devoted; it shall belong to the priest” (Leviticus 27:20–21). This indicates that any kind of ancestral field at all, regardless of quality, goes to the priests if it is not redeemed by the Jubilee Year.

Furthermore, Rav Pappa says: If one sold fields that are rocky and unsuitable for planting, they may be redeemed from the purchaser in even less than two years, despite the fact that normally land must be left in the hands of the purchaser for at least two years (see 29b), as derived from the plural term “years of the crops” cited below. What is the reason? The Merciful One states: “According to the number of years after the Jubilee you shall buy from your neighbor, and according to the number of years of the crops he shall sell it to you” (Leviticus 25:15), and these rocky fields are not fit for crops. But if he did not redeem them from the purchaser, they return to the owner in the Jubilee Year, like ancestral fields. What is the reason? The Merciful One states: “Then let him count the years of its sale, and restore the extra to the man to whom he sold it; and it shall return to its ancestral heritage” (Leviticus 25:27), and this rocky field is also part of his ancestral heritage.

Rav Pappa further says: If one consecrated trees in his ancestral field, he redeems them according to their value. What is the reason? The Merciful One states that one redeems an area fit for sowing of a ḥomer of barley seed for fifty silver shekels. This is referring specifically to land fit for sowing grain, and not trees. Furthermore, if he did not redeem the trees, they do not go to the priests in the Jubilee Year, unlike an ancestral field. The reason is that the Merciful One states: “But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy to the Lord, as a field devoted; it shall belong to the priest” (Leviticus 27:21). This too is referring specifically to a field, and not trees.

Rav Pappa also says: If one sold trees of his ancestral field, they may not be redeemed from the purchaser if less than two years passed. What is the reason? The Merciful One states: “According to the number of years after the Jubilee you shall buy it from your neighbor, and according to the number of years of the crops he shall sell it to you” (Leviticus 25:15), and these trees are fit for crops, as they produce fruit. But if he did not redeem them from the purchaser, the trees do not return to the owner in the Jubilee Year. What is the reason? The Merciful One states: “Then let him count the years of its sale, and restore the extra to the man to whom he sold it; and it shall return to its ancestral heritage” (Leviticus 25:27). This includes only land, which remains forever, and not trees, which have a limited lifespan.

The Gemara asks: The Master, i.e., Rav Pappa, says that if one consecrated trees in his ancestral field he redeems them according to their value. The Gemara asks: Why is that so? But let them be consecrated on account of their land and let them be redeemed on account of their land, according to the valuation of fifty silver shekels for each area required for sowing a kor of barley seed.

And if you would say that he consecrated the trees and did not consecrate land, but didn’t the Sages of Neharde’a say: If one sells a date palm to another, the purchaser acquires it from the bottom of the palm until the depths of the earth, i.e., including its land. The Gemara answers: Wasn’t it stated with regard to this ruling that it is referring only to a case where the purchaser comes due to a specific claim that he purchased the land under the date palm. But if he does not claim to have explicitly purchased the land, the seller or the one who consecrates does not intend to include land with the date palm.

§ The mishna teaches: And with regard to a purchased field that one consecrates, he gives its value as redemption, a sum that can be more or less than fifty silver shekels for an area required for the sowing of a kor of barley seed. The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “Then the priest shall reckon for him the worth of your valuation until the Jubilee Year; and he shall give your valuation in that day, as a holy thing to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:23). What does this word “worth” come to teach? Since it is stated with regard to an ancestral field: “An area fit for the sowing of a ḥomer of barley seed is redeemed for fifty silver shekels” (Leviticus 27:16), one might have thought that a purchased field is also redeemed using this formula. Therefore, the verse states “worth,” which means the market value of the field.

Rabbi Eliezer says: It is stated here, with regard to purchased fields: “Then the priest shall reckon for him the worth of your valuation until the Jubilee Year; and he shall give your valuation in that day, as a holy thing to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:23). And it is stated there, with regard to an ancestral field: “But if he sanctifies his field after the Jubilee, then the priest shall reckon for him the money according to the years that remain until the Jubilee Year, and it shall be deducted from your valuation” (Leviticus 27:18). Just as there, in the case of an ancestral field, it is referring to a fixed amount, so too here, with regard to a purchased field, it means a fixed amount.

A dilemma was raised before the students: Do the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, accept that one derives the verbal analogy of “shall reckon,” but they use it to derive that one who redeems a consecrated purchased field must also add one-fifth? Or perhaps they do not accept the verbal analogy at all, and they do not hold that one who redeems a purchased field must add one-fifth?

Rava said: It is reasonable to assume that the Rabbis do not accept the verbal analogy. The reasoning is as follows: From the fact that the Merciful One revealed in the Torah that one must add one-fifth in the case of one who redeems an ancestral field and in the case of one who consecrates his house, these are two verses that come as one, i.e., to teach the same matter. And any two verses that come as one do not teach their common aspect, in this case, adding one-fifth, to apply to other cases. Therefore, it can be assumed that the Rabbis maintain that one who redeems his purchased field does not have to pay an additional fifth.

Rava continues: And even according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do teach their common aspect, from the fact that the Merciful One revealed in the Torah that one must add one-fifth when he redeems his second tithe, and when he redeems his kosher animal that he consecrated and became blemished, and when he redeems his non-kosher animal that he consecrated, these are many verses that come at one, and everyone agrees that multiple verses do not teach their common aspect to other cases.

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the ruling of Rava, but not for his reason. It is taught in a baraita: “Then the priest shall reckon for him the worth of your valuation until the Jubilee Year; and he shall give your valuation in that day, as a holy thing to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:23). The verse juxtaposes this estimation to fixed valuations. Just as with regard to fixed valuations one does not add one-fifth, so too when redeeming a purchased field one does not add one-fifth.

MISHNA: There are halakhot with regard to a forewarned ox that killed a Canaanite slave that are lenient and others that are stringent; how so? Both in the case of an ox that killed the most attractive among the slaves, whose value is great, and likewise in the case of one that killed the most unsightly among the slaves, whose value is minimal, its owner gives payment of thirty sela, the fine stated in the Torah (Exodus 21:32), to the owner of the slave. If the ox killed a freeman, its owner gives his price as payment to his heirs. This sum can be more or less than thirty shekels. If the ox injured this slave or that freeman, he gives payment of the full cost of the damage as compensation.

GEMARA: As the mishna first specifies that it is speaking of a forewarned ox, this indicates that with regard to a forewarned ox that injured a freeman, yes, one is liable for full payment, but with regard to an innocuous ox that injured a freeman one does not make full restitution, but pays only half the value of the victim. The Gemara asks: Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. As we learned in a mishna (Bava Kamma 33a) that Rabbi Akiva says: The owner of an innocuous ox that injured a person also pays the full cost of the damage with regard to the difference between the damage the person inflicted on the ox and the damage the ox inflicted on the person. Evidently, Rabbi Akiva does not distinguish between an innocuous and a forewarned ox in a case where an ox injured a person.

The Gemara answers: You may even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, and explain it as follows: The same is true that even the owner of an innocuous ox must make full restitution, but since the tanna wants to teach in the first part of the latter clause of the mishna: An ox that killed a slave and an ox that killed a freeman, which you find in the case of forewarned ox but in the case of an innocuous ox you do not find it, as the penalty for killing a person does not apply to an innocuous ox, it is for this reason that the mishna teaches only the case of a forewarned ox.

MISHNA: There are halakhot with regard to a rapist and with regard to a seducer that are lenient and others that are stringent; how so? Both one who raped or seduced a young woman who is the most prominent in the priesthood and one who raped or seduced a young woman who is the lowliest among the Israelites gives the payment of fifty sela, the fine stated in the Torah (see Deuteronomy 22:29). And the payments for humiliation and for degradation resulting from being raped or seduced are assessed differentially; it is all based on the one who humiliates and the one who is humiliated.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why must the rapist or seducer also pay for her humiliation and degradation? One can say that the Merciful One states in the verse: “Then the man that lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver” (Deuteronomy 22:29), that he is to pay a total of fifty sela for all matters associated with this act, i.e., the fine, degradation, humiliation, and pain.

Rav Zeira says: It cannot be that he pays a total of only fifty sela, as people will say: Does it make sense that one who engaged in forced intercourse with, i.e., raped, a daughter of kings pays a sum of fifty sela, when she suffers great humiliation, and one who engaged in forced intercourse with the daughter of ordinary people [hedyotot] also pays fifty sela?

Abaye said to Rav Zeira: If so, the same claim can be applied with regard to a slave killed by an ox. People will also say: Does it make sense that a slave who pierces pearls [margalit] is worth thirty sela, and a slave who performs needlecraft is also worth thirty sela? Nevertheless, the mishna clearly indicates that there is no distinction between the two slaves, as the Torah states a fixed payment. Rather, Rav Zeira says that there is a different proof:

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Arachin 14b examines rabbinic disputes over classifying a purchased field as ancestral property based on timing of consecration, death, and redemption.