Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Arakhin

Arakhin 14 for kids: What Is a Field Worth?

ערכין י״ד

🌳 This daf asks how much someone pays to redeem a field that was consecrated. Does the answer change if the land has trees or is too rocky to plant?

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Arakhin 14a in Daf QuestOpen Arakhin 14b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Arakhin 14

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Arakhin 14 in simple English

Rashi on Arakhin 14a, in English Tab translation (31)
  1. Another point is taught in passing — The mishna does not mention the most attractive gentile because it is forbidden to speak of a gentile’s beauty, as Rav Yehuda teaches from “You shall not show them favor”: do not ascribe beauty to them.
  2. But it teaches — In the case of rape or seduction.
  3. The lowliest among the Israelites and the most prominent in the priesthood — Evidently, the mishna speaks of two groups.
  4. You do not find this with regard to a gentile — The law of redeeming an ancestral field for fifty silver shekels does not apply to them. Their fields are redeemed at their value, since they cannot hold ancestral land in Eretz Yisrael.
  5. Mishna: Both one who consecrates — A field in the sandy outskirts of a city, which is less valuable because people walk over it. Alternatively, “district” means a city, or it is the name of a place whose fields were not valuable.
  6. The orchards of Sebastia — The vineyards there, which are exceptionally fine.
  7. Gives — Whoever redeems such a field, whether its owner or someone else, pays fifty silver shekels for an area fit for sowing a kor of barley if it is the beginning of the Jubilee cycle. Otherwise, the payment is reduced according to the years that have passed, at a sela and a pundion per year, as the verse states.
  8. Both an ancestral field and so forth — Both are redeemed for fifty shekels.
  9. An ancestral field — If its owner redeems it, he adds one-fifth to the fifty shekels, as the verse says: “If the one who consecrated the field wishes to redeem it…”
  10. But for a purchased field one does not add one-fifth — As the Gemara explains.
  11. Gemara: He consecrates generously — He consecrates the trees and the land separately, so the trees are not redeemed along with the land.
  12. Orchards — These are planted vineyards, yet the mishna sets their redemption at fifty shekels. Evidently, the trees are redeemed along with the land.
  13. Suitable — Suitable for an orchard, but not planted with trees.
  14. I have derived only — Only land fit for sowing is redeemed for fifty shekels.
  15. He redeems — He redeems the trees at their value and then redeems the land. The phrase “any field” applies only to the land.
  16. One who consecrated three trees — They are spaced at the rate of ten trees per area fit for sowing a se’ah. This is the normal spacing for trees, and they need the land between them. Thus, consecrating the trees also consecrates that land and any young trees between them.
  17. Less than that — If the trees are planted more densely than ten per area fit for sowing a se’ah, or more sparsely, they are not planted at the normal spacing. He therefore consecrates only the trees and redeems them at their value.
  18. One after the other — The Temple does not acquire the land with them, since land is acquired only with three trees, as stated in Bava Batra.
  19. And moreover — Not only are those trees redeemed at their value because no land was consecrated with them.
  20. But even if he consecrated the trees — Trees that are not planted at the normal spacing.
  21. And afterward consecrated the land — One might think the trees should be redeemed along with their land. Nevertheless, because they were not consecrated together, he redeems the trees at their value and the land at the rate of fifty shekels per area fit for sowing a kor of barley.
  22. A refutation of Rav Huna — From the first clause: when the trees and land are consecrated together, the trees are redeemed along with the land.
  23. He consecrated all of it — Everything within the field.
  24. Rabbi Shimon says he did not consecrate — The trees in the field.
  25. Except for a grafted carob tree and a sycamore stump — These are very large, old trees that draw more nourishment from the consecrated field than other trees, as explained in Bava Batra. Sycamores are cut back so their trunks grow thicker. Before it is cut back, it is called a young sycamore; afterward, a sycamore stump, as taught in Niddah.
  26. Follow the time of redemption — since at that time the land is together with the trees.
  27. Let them be redeemed along with their land — even though he consecrated the trees separately.
  28. And he consecrated it, and then his father died — although it was a purchased field when he consecrated it, after his father died it became an ancestral field.
  29. How do we know it is treated as an ancestral field — and redeemed for fifty shekels rather than its value?
  30. Scripture says, and so forth: A field that cannot become an ancestral field — is treated as a purchased field and redeemed for its value; this field is excluded, and so forth.
  31. And then he consecrated it — it was an ancestral field when he consecrated it. But if he consecrated it and then his father died, it is treated only as a purchased field.
Tosafot on Arakhin 14a, in English Tab translation (3)
  1. You do not find this among gentiles — They cannot have ancestral fields in the Land of Israel. Although the Talmud says that a gentile inherits his father’s property by Torah law, gentiles had no ancestral allotment there. This law applies only in the Land of Israel.
  2. He consecrated three trees from a planting of ten per area needed to sow one se’a — This refers to young trees; for mature trees, three per such area would suffice.
  3. Less or more than this, he did not consecrate the land — At ten trees per area needed to sow one se’a, each tree has 250 square cubits. But the Talmud says that someone who buys three trees spaced four to sixteen cubits apart acquires the land beneath and between them, plus enough space around them for a picker and his basket. Thus even eight cubits by eight cubits—64 square cubits per tree—is enough to acquire land, whereas here less than 250 is not. Rabbi Yehuda explains that a sale requires less land per tree than consecration. Yet why does consecration convey no land when the trees are farther apart, while a sale does even at sixteen cubits apart—seemingly 256 square cubits per tree? The sixteen-cubit measure in a sale describes a circle; its area is a quarter less than that of its enclosing square. Thus a sale requires less land per tree in this respect too. Rabbeinu Shmuel asks about a Tosefta that makes no distinction between sale and consecration for acquiring land, and answers that the tannaim disagree. A further difficulty remains: Rabbi Shimon says that trees eight cubits apart are not too far apart even for consecration, yet the Gemara shortly attributes the baraita here to him. The answer is that it attributes to him only the rule that one consecrates sparingly, not the baraita’s required spacing between trees.
Rashi on Arakhin 14b, in English Tab translation (29)
  1. If because of the verse — “Which is not of his ancestral field” may exclude a case where his father died before he consecrated the field, as Rabbi Meir explains, rather than one where he consecrated it before his father died.
  2. At the time of redemption — Since his father had died by then, it was an ancestral field.
  3. If so — If the verse comes to teach Rabbi Meir’s rule, the Torah could have written it differently, as the Gemara explains.
  4. He redeems them for their value — Even though they are ancestral fields.
  5. He did not redeem them — And the Temple treasurer sold them to someone else.
  6. They go to the priests in the Jubilee Year — As it is written, “If he does not redeem,” followed by “But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee.”
  7. The Torah says “the field” — “But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee”; this does not include trees.
  8. In less than two years — Although one who sells land cannot redeem it until the buyer has held it for two years, as indicated by “years of the crops.”
  9. If he did not redeem them, they do not go to the priests in the Jubilee Year — This applies if the Temple treasurer sold the trees to someone else.
  10. Let them be redeemed along with their land — That is, the ground where the trees stand. Likewise, if he sold the trees, they should return to him with that ground in the Jubilee Year. Why, then, does it say that sold trees do not return in the Jubilee Year?
  11. From its base — The ground where the tree stands, down to the depths.
  12. On account of a claim — The buyer claims that the seller explicitly mentioned the land to him.
  13. Concerning a purchased field, it is written — “The priest shall calculate for him the sum of your valuation.”
  14. Since it says — Regarding the redemption of an ancestral field, “an area sown with a ḥomer of barley.”
  15. The verse teaches “the sum” — Its monetary amount, meaning its actual value.
  16. It says here — Concerning a purchased field, and there, concerning an ancestral field.
  17. A fixed amount — Fifty silver shekels.
  18. Do they accept this verbal analogy? — Do they link the word “calculate” in the two passages to derive an added fifth for a purchased field from the law of an ancestral field?
  19. An added fifth for an ancestral field and for one who consecrates a house — These are written in the section beginning “If you follow My laws.” An added fifth for unclean and clean animals and for second tithe is also written there.
  20. A baraita supports Rava — No added fifth is paid when redeeming a purchased field.
  21. But not for his reason — Rava infers this from the Torah’s explicit mention of an added fifth in the other cases. The baraita derives it by comparing a purchased field to a person’s fixed valuation when someone pledges the value of himself or another.
  22. If it killed a free person, he pays that person’s value — Concerning an ox known to gore, the verse says, “If a ransom is imposed on him.” The Sages explain “he shall give the redemption of his life” as payment based on the victim’s value.
  23. If it injured either — Whether a slave or a free person, without killing them, its owner pays full damages.
  24. An ox known to gore, yes; an ox not known to gore, no — This question concerns the later clause, about injury. The opening cases clearly do not apply to an ox not known to gore: the Torah calls its owner “free of liability,” which the Sages interpret as exempting him from the payment for killing a slave and from half a ransom for killing a free person.
  25. Even an ox not known to gore that injured a person — Rabbi Akiva says that if the person also injured the ox, the ox’s owner pays full damages for the amount by which the person’s injury exceeds the ox’s injury. This shows that an ox not known to gore that injures a person can be liable for full damages.
  26. Because the latter clause teaches, ‘If it killed a slave, if it killed a free person,’ etc. — the first clause mentions a forewarned ox. Here, ‘the latter clause’ means the latter part of the opening section, which begins with the forewarned ox.
  27. Loss of value — As explained in Ketubot 40a, assess how much more a person would pay for a virgin slave woman than for a nonvirgin slave woman, to marry her to a slave with whom he is pleased.
  28. From all payments — Would he not have to pay for shame and loss of value?
  29. One who had intercourse with a commoner’s daughter, etc. — This is a rhetorical question. But when he pays for shame, the amount differs between a king’s daughter and a commoner’s daughter.
Tosafot on Arakhin 14b, in English Tab translation (5)
  1. Do the Rabbis have a verbal analogy from which they derive the additional fifth? — Rabbi Elchanan asks why we cannot learn a verbal analogy from these passages. Even if they cannot serve as a general precedent, why not use them for a verbal analogy? It seems to our teacher that the Torah states the additional fifth both for one who consecrates an ancestral field and for one who consecrates his house, although either could have been learned from the other by verbal analogy. Since the Torah states it separately in both places, they are two verses teaching the same law, from which we cannot derive a law elsewhere, even by verbal analogy.
  2. They are two verses teaching the same law — But how is that so? A verbal analogy can teach the additional fifth for a purchased field from an ancestral field, while no such analogy appears to exist for a consecrated house. Perhaps “he shall value” concerning a house counts like “he shall reckon.” Alternatively, “he shall reckon” may not be a full verbal analogy, though the text calls it one. Similarly, the first chapter of Bava Kamma calls the comparison of “field” in two verses a verbal analogy, but Rabbi Yitzhak says it is not a full one. Or perhaps “holy,” which appears for both an ancestral field and a house, provides a full verbal analogy; that is why they are called two verses teaching the same law.
  3. For a forewarned ox, yes; for an unwarned ox, no. Shall we say the mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Akiva? — This refers to the mishnah’s later clause: if the ox injured either a slave or a free person, its owner pays full damages. It cannot refer to the clauses about killing a slave or a free person, since Rabbi Akiva does not dispute that the owner of an unwarned ox pays neither ransom nor the thirty shekels for a slave, as stated in Bava Kamma.
  4. Compensation for humiliation depends on the one who caused it and the one who suffered it — As for the loss in value, Ketubot explains that we estimate how much more a person would pay for a virgin maidservant than for one who is not a virgin, to marry her to his slave who has served him well.
  5. Will they say: A king’s daughter receives fifty, and a commoner’s daughter receives fifty? — This is somewhat puzzling. The mishnah says that the payment is fifty whether she is from the most prominent priestly family or the least prominent Israelite family. Why does the Gemara speak instead of a king’s daughter?

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Arachin, Erchin 14.