Gittin

that the case here considered is one where the best of the claimant is equal [in quality] to the worst of the defendant, in which case R. Ishmael held that we assess on the land of the claimant,  whereas R. Akiba held that we assess on the land of the defendant.  What is R. Ishmael's reason? — The word 'field' occurs both in the earlier  and the later  clause; just as in the earlier clause it refers to the field of the claimant, so in the later it refers to the field of the claimant. R. Akiba, on the other hand, held that the words, from the best of his field he shall make restitution mean, from the best of him who makes restitution. What does R. Ishmael say to this? — [He says that] the gezerah shawah  has its lesson and the text has its lesson. The lesson of the gezerah shawah is what we have said.  The lesson of the text is that if the defendant has high grade and low grade land and his low grade land is not equal to the best of the claimant, he pays him from the best. 'R. Akiba says: 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.' What is the meaning of 'all the more so in the case of the Sanctuary'? Are we to say that [this rule applies] where our ox has gored the ox of the Sanctuary? [This cannot be, because] the Divine Law says, [if one man's ox hurt] the ox of one's neighbour,  but not an ox of the Sanctuary.  Shall we say then that what is meant is that if a man says, 'I take upon myself to give a maneh for the repair of the Temple,' the treasurer can come and collect it from the best [of his land]? Surely he is in no better position than a creditor, and a creditor has a right to collect only from the medium property!  And should you contend that R. Akiba holds that a creditor can collect from the best like a [claimant for] damages, we may still object, how can you draw an analogy from a [private] creditor, who is at an advantage in that he can claim compensation for damages, to the Sanctuary, which has no right [ever] to claim compensation for damages?  — I may still say that [these words refer to the case where] our ox gored the ox of the Sanctuary, for R. Akiba held the same view as R. Simeon b. Menasya, as it has been taught: R. Simeon b. Menasya says: If an ox of the Sanctuary gores an ox of a layman, there is no liability, but if the ox of a layman gores an ox of the sanctuary, whether it was tam  or mu'ad,  the owner has to pay compensation in full.  If that is the case, why should you say that R. Akiba and R. Ishmael differ [as to what is to be done] when the best of the claimant is equal to the worst of the defendant? Perhaps in that case both agree that we assess on the land of the claimant,  and their dispute here  is the same as that between R. Simeon b. Menasya and the Rabbis, R. Akiba adopting the same view as R. Simeon b. Menasya and R. Ishmael adopting the view of the Rabbis?  — If that were the case, why should R. Akiba have said 'The whole purpose of the text etc.,'  and again, what means 'All the more so in the case of the Sanctuary'?  And besides, R. Ashi has told us,