Gittin

where it says, According to the number of years of the crops he shall sell unto thee.  A Baraitha, as it has been taught: A firstborn son receives a double portion of a field which [was due to] be restored to his father at the Jubilee. Abaye said: We have it on tradition that a husband [before going to law] about property belonging to his wife requires authorization from her.  This, however, is the case only if the suit does not concern the produce. But if the suit concerns the produce, while he is putting forward claims to the produce he can put forward claims to the land itself as well. MISHNAH. COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE  IS PAID OUT  OF [PROPERTY OF] THE BEST QUALITY, A CREDITOR OUT OF LAND OF MEDIUM QUALITY, AND A WOMAN'S KETHUBAH OUT OF LAND OF THE POOREST QUALITY. R. MEIR, HOWEVER, SAYS THAT A WOMAN'S KETHUBAH IS ALSO PAID OUT OF MEDIUM [QUALITY LAND]. PAYMENT CANNOT BE RECOVERED FROM MORTGAGED PROPERTY WHERE THERE ARE FREE ASSETS AVAILABLE, EVEN IF THEY ARE ONLY LOWEST GRADE LAND. PAYMENT FROM ORPHANS CAN BE RECOVERED ONLY FROM LOWEST GRADE LAND. INDEMNIFICATION FOR PRODUCE CONSUMED  AND FOR THE BETTERMENT OF PROPERTY [DURING WRONGFUL TENURE] [AND PAYMENT] FOR THE MAINTENANCE [BY A MAN'S HEIRS] OF HIS WIDOW AND DAUGHTERS  IS NOT ENFORCED FROM MORTGAGED PROPERTY, TO PREVENT ABUSES.  THE FINDER OF A LOST ARTICLE CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO TAKE AN OATH, TO PREVENT ABUSES. GEMARA. [COMPENSATION … PROPERTY OF THE BEST QUALITY.] Is this only an ordinance to prevent abuses?  It derives from the Scripture, as it is written, The best of his field and the best of his vineyard he shall pay!  — Abaye replied: This statement holds good only if we take the view of R. Ishmael who said that according to the Torah the assessment is made on the property of the claimant of damage;  we are then told here that to prevent abuses  we make the assessment on the property of the defendant. What statement of R. Ishmael is referred to? — As it has been taught: 'The best of his field and the best of his vineyard he shall pay': [that is to say,] the best of the field of the claimant and the best of the vineyard of the claimant.  So R. Ishmael. R. Akiba said: The whole purpose of the text is to allow compensation for damage to be recovered from the best property [of the defendant]: and all the more so in the case of the Sanctuary. Now according to R. Ishmael,  if [a man's beast] ate the vegetables from a rich bed, he [naturally] repays the value of a rich bed, but if it ate from a poor bed is he to repay the value of a rich one? — R. Idi b. Abin said: We are dealing here with a case where it ate one bed out of a number and we do not know whether it was a rich one or a poor one; in this case he repays the value of the best. Said Raba. Seeing that if where we know that it ate a poor one he repays only the value of a poor one, here, where we do not know, is he to pay the value of a rich one? Does not the onus probandi fall on the claimant? — R. Aha b. Jacob therefore suggested