Arakhin

[our Mishnah] informs us incidentally1 of a teaching in accord with Rab Judah, Who said in the name of Rab: One should not say, How beautiful is this Canaanite!2 Then let it teach: ‘Whether a man has dedicated the fairest in Israel or the ugliest among Canaanites’? It deals with one nation, not With two nations. But does it not? Surely it teaches: ‘Of the noblest among the priests, and the humblest in Israel’?3 — There it is one nation, except that the priests are holier. And if you like, say: Since it is about to teach, in the second part of 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],4 therefore it teaches also [in the first part of the Mishnah] with reference to Israel alone. MISHNAH. ‘THE LAW OF THE FIELD OF POSSESSION IS AT TIMES MORE LENIENT, AT OTHERS MORE STRINGENT. HOW IS THAT? IT IS ALL ONE WHETHER A MAN DEDICATES A FIELD IN THE SANDY PLAIN OF MAHUZ5 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,6 BUT IF IT WAS A FIELD WHICH HE HATH BOUGHT’,7 HE MUST PAY WHAT IT IS WORTH. R. ELIEZER SAYS: IT IS ALL THE SAME WHETHER IT BE A FIELD OF POSSESSION OR ONE THAT HE HATH BOUGHT. 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.8 GEMARA. 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’. We see thus that R. Huna tolds one Who dedicated, dedicates with a generous eye.9 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 GARDENS10 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.11 He raised a further objection: ‘Field for the sowing’:12 from this I know only [the rule] in the case of a field for sowing. whence do we know it concerning a field of vines, or a field of reeds, or a field of trees? Therefore Scripture says: Field,13 i.e., as long as it is a field! — R. Huna replied: Here, too, he redeems, and then redeems again! 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,14 then he also dedicates the soil as well as the trees between them.15 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.16 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 trees between them;17 therefore, when he redeems them he redeems the trees at their value; and even more, if he first dedicates his trees18 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!19 And, if you were to say: Here20 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]?19 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.21 R. Simeon says: He does not dedicate anything [together with the field] save the full grown carob tree and the cropped sycamore tree. 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 circumstances22 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. 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’? 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,23 i.e., a field which could not become a field of possession,24 that excludes [such a field as] this, which would have become his field of possession. 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? cruelty and immorality of idolaters. to repay its value. 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. square cubits. 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. after having redeemed the trees. 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. text. 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. tree, v. B.B., Sonc. ed., p. 282 notes. together with or after the tract is then irrelevant.