1)

(a)Our Mishnah discusses 'be'Sadeh Achuzah Lehakel u'Lehachmir'. The fixed rate of redemption for a Sadeh Achuzah is - fifty Shekalim (Sela'im) for an area in which one can sow a Chomer (a Kur = thirty Sa'ah) of barley.

(b)As an example of the two extremes, the Tana uses ...

1. ... Cholas ha'Mechoz - which means literally an area that surrounds the city and that is inferior in quality, due to the fact that many people pass through it. Alternatively, M'choz is the name of an area where the land was inferior.

2. ... Pard'sos Sabs'tu - which means the orchards of Sabs'tu (an area of superior-quality fields).

(c)The Din will differ if ...

1. ... the owner redeems his own field - inasmuch as he is obligated to add a fifth (of the total, which is equivalent to what we call a quarter).

2. ... one is redeeming a purchased field (a Sadeh Mikneh) - inasmuch as one then redeems the land for its intrinsic value.

(d)This is the opinion of the Tana Kama. Rebbi Eliezer disagrees with regard to a Sadeh Mikneh, which in his opinion - is redeemed at the same rate as a Sadeh Achuzah.

(e)The difference between a Sadeh Achuzah and a Sadeh Mikneh, even according to him is that - in the latter case, the owner is not obligated to pay an extra fifth.

2)

(a)Rav Huna rules that someone who declares Hekdesh a field full of trees - redeems the trees according to their intrinsic value, but the field at the given rate ...

(b)... because - someone who is Makdish, does so generously.

(c)Rav Huna refutes ...

1. ... Rav Nachman, who queries him from our Mishnah 've'Echad ha'Makdish Pard'sos Sabs'tu' - by establishing the phrase to mean that the field is fit to plant orchards of Sabs'tu, not that it actually contains them.

2. ... the Kashya from a Beraisa, incorporating a field of vines, a field of canes and a field of trees from "Sadeh" in the Din of Sadeh Achuzah - by explaining it to mean that he redeems the trees at their intrinsic value, and not together with the field (as the questioner thought).

3)

(a)And we query Rav Huna further from another Beraisa, which rules that if someone declares Hekdesh three trees in an area the same proportion of ten saplings per Beis-Sa'ah - he redeems the land and any small trees that sprouted up in it, at the rate of fifty Shekel per Beis Chomer Se'orim.

(b)In the same case, but where he planted them in a different proportion, or where he planted them in the same proportion but on three different occasions - both the trees and the field are not Hekdesh ...

(c)... because three trees are Chashuv and automatically acquire the ground in which they are growing, which is not the case where one purchases one or two trees.

(d)Whereas in a case where, after declaring the trees Hekdesh, he declares the land Hekdesh as well, the Tana rules that - one redeems the field at the given rate, and the trees according to their intrinsic value.

4)

(a)The Kashya on Rav Huna from the Reisha of the Beraisa is that according to him, the trees ought to be evaluated and redeemed according to their intrinsic value, and not together with the field.

(b)We cannot answer (like we answered above) that this is what the Tana actually means - since that is how he rules in the Seifa, implying that it is not the case in the Reisha.

(c)We answer that the author of this Beraisa is Rebbi Shimon, who holds - Makdish, be'Ayin Ra'ah Makdish, which explains why he is permitted to redeem the trees together with the Hekdesh.

(d)The Tana Kama rules that someone who declares a field Hekdesh, includes all the trees. According to Rebbi Shimon, it only includes a grafted carob-tree and the stump of a wild fig-tree ... (e) ... which are both old and large, and which therefore need to nurture from the ground more than other trees.

5)

(a)We query this answer however, on the basis of another Beraisa, which we will now discuss. When we say that Rebbi Shimon goes after the Pidyon, we mean that - we gauge how to redeem an article by its status at the time of redemption, rather than at the time that it was declared Hekdesh.

(b)And this poses a Kashya on the Seifa of the current Beraisa, where, after declaring the trees Hekdesh, the Noder declares the land Hekdesh as well, the Tana rules that one redeems the field at the given rate, and the trees according to their market value. But surely, if we go after the Pidyon - then they should both be redeemed at the given rate, as if they had been declared Hekdesh simultaneously.

(c)Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon extrapolate from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "Im es S'dei Miknaso asher Lo mi'Sedei Achuzaso" that if a son purchases a field from his father and declares it Hekdesh before his father died and he inherits it - then he redeems it at the given rate (despite the fact that when he declared it Hekdesh, it was a Sadeh Mikneh).

(d)Rebbi Meir extrapolates from the same Pasuk - the same Chidush, only where the son declared it Hekdesh after his father died death (but not before).

6)

(a)The problem with Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon's interpretation of the current Pasuk is that - it is more logical to learn the Pasuk like Rebbi Meir (since it is a smaller Chidush, which, based on the principle Tafasta Mu'at, Tafasta, we always apply).

(b)Initially, we attempt to explain their ruling - on the basis of the fact that they go after the time of the Pidyon, as we explained.

(c)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak rejects this proof however, and he extrapolates their ruling from the Lashon "asher Lo mi'S'dei Achuzaso". Because, had we held like Rebbi Meir's ruling, according to them - it ought to have written 'asher Lo S'dei Achuzaso' (without the 'Mem').

(d)"mi'Sedeh Achuzaso" implies that - only a Sadeh Mikneh that is not fit to become a Sadeh Achuzah has the Din of A Sadeh Mikneh, but not one that is (such as a field that a son purchases from his father, as in this case).

7)

(a)Rav Papa extrapolates from the Lashon (used with regard to a Sadeh Achuzah) ...

1. ... "Beis Zera", in connection with its redemption, if the owner declared it Hekdesh that - a rocky field that is not fit to sow must be redeemed according to its market value (even though it falls under the category of Sadeh Achuzah).

2. ... "Sadeh" that - in the event that the treasurer of Hekdesh sold it to somebody else - it nevertheless returns to the original owner in the Yovel year (since it is undeniably a field).

3. ... "Mispar Sh'nei Tevu'os" that - the restriction of buying it back from the purchaser to whom one sold it, before two years of produce have elapsed does not pertain to it (since there is no produce).

4. ... "ve'Shav la'Achuzaso" that if he did not buy it back - it reverts to the original owner in the Yovel (since it is after all, an inheritance.

(b)And he learns from ...

1. ... "Beis Zera" that if he declared trees, Hekdesh - he must redeem them at their market value (since trees are not called Zera).

2. ... "Vehayah ha'Sadeh" that - they do not revert to him in the Yovel year (since trees are not called a field).

3. ... "be'Mispar Sh'nei Tevu'os" that - the restriction of buying back trees that one sold within two years pertains to him, too (seeing as the fruit of a tree falls under the category of produce).

4. ... "Veshav la'Achuzaso" that if he has not bought them back by the time the Yovel arrives - they do not revert to him (because they are not considered an inheritance).

(c)We query Rav Papa's ruling from "Beis Zera" regarding where the owner declares trees Hekdesh, from the Neherda'i, who said that a person who purchases a date-palm - has rights in the land from the base right down to the center or the earth.

(d)And we answer with the qualifying statement that we learned in connection with that ruling, that - this only applies if he actually claims that the seller specifically mentioned land at the time of the purchase.

8)

(a)Bearing in mind the Pasuk "Zera Chomer Se'orim ba'Chamishim Shekel Kesef" (of Sadeh Achuzah), the Tana Kama in the Beraisa learns from "be'Michsas" that - a Sadeh Mikneh must be redeemed at its market value.

(b)Whereas Rebbi Eliezer there learns from the Gezeirah-Shavah "ve'Chishav lo ha'Kohen" (in Bechukosai, in connection with Sadeh Mikneh) "ve'Chishav lo ha'Kohen" (in B'har, in connection with Sadeh Achuzah) that - a Sadeh Mikneh is redeemed at the same fixed rate as a Sadeh Achuzah.

(c)We ask whether the Rabbanan hold of the Gezeirah-Shavah (Sadeh Mikneh from Sadeh Achuzah) at all, or not. If they do, they will from learn it - the Din of a Chomesh (which the owner must add if he chooses to redeem it from Hekdesh).

9)

(a)Rava concludes that they probably don't learn the Gezeirah-Shavah, seeing as the Torah writes the Din of Chomesh by both Sadeh Achuzah and Makdish Beiso - and we have a principle Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad Ein Melamdin' (meaning that we preclude all other cases from the Din of Chomesh).

(b)There is no problem according to those who hold Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Achad, Melamdin - because the Torah also writes "Chomesh" by the redemption of Ma'aser Beheimah Tehorah and Ma'aser Beheimah Temei'ah (and everyone agrees that Sheloshah Kesuvim ha'Ba'in ke'Echad, Ein Melamdin).

(c)We substantiate Rava's ruling - by citing a Beraisa that supports him.

(d)The Tana does not however, present the same reason as Rava. He learns the Din from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "be'Michsas ha'Erk'cha" - comparing Sadeh Mikneh to Erchin, where there is no such thing as a Chomesh.

10)

(a)Our Mishnah explains 'be'Shor ha'Mu'ad she'Heimis es ha'Eved Lehakel u'Lehachmir' in that - irrespective of whether the Eved was the most handsome man on earth or the ugliest, the owner of the ox has to pay thirty Shekalim.

(b)If the Shor ha'Mu'ad...

1. ... kills a ben Chorin - the owner has to pay his full assessed value.

2. ... wounds an Eved - he must pay full damages.

(c)Based on the fact that the Mishnah opens with the words 'Shor ha'Mu'ad', we extrapolate from the Mishnah's final ruling that - a Shor Tam would not pay full damages if it wounded a ben Chorin.

11)

(a)The previous ruling does not appear to go like Rebbi Akiva, who rules that if a Tam and a person wound each other - then, whoever caused more damage, must pay the difference in full.

(b)We reconcile the Mishnah with Rebbi Akiva after all - by ignoring the inference and extending the ruling to a Shor Tam as well ...

(c)... and the reason that the Tana refers specifically to a Mu'ad - is because the ruling in the Seifa de'Reisha ('Heimis Eved Heimis ben Chorin ... ') does not apply to a Tam (since a Shor Tam is Patur from Kofer).

12)

(a)Our Mishnah explain 'be'O'neis u'Mefateh Lehakel u'Lehachmir' to mean that - he pays fifty Shekalim, irrespective of whether the girl is a Gedolah she'bi'Kehunah or a Ketanah she'be'Yisrael.

(b)The man must however, pay according to the Beis-Din's assessment, and not a pre-fixed sum - with regard to Boshes and P'gam.

(c)P'gam - is the girl's depreciation (from a Besulah to a Be'ulah), which is assessed by how much a man would pay for a Shifchah who is a Besulah, to satisfy his Eved who wants to marry her.

13)

(a)The problem with the fact that Oneis and Mefateh pay Boshes and P'gam is - what is the source for anything over and above the K'nas of fifty Shekalim.

(b)Abaye objection to Rebbi Ze'ira's ...

1. ... first suggestion that it is not logical to draw no distinction between a princess and an ordinary woman is that - it should not be any different than the Din of a Shor Mu'ad which gores an Eved, where no distinction is drawn between an Eved who works in diamonds and one who is a simple tailor.

2. ... second suggestion, that it is not logical to draw no distinction between a man who performs a natural Bi'ah after someone performed an unnatural Bi'ah and someone who performed the first natural Bi'ah (where the shame is greater) - inasmuch as this is no different than the case of an ox killing an Eved where he pays thirty Shekalim irrespective of whether the Eved was in the prime of health or whether he was a leper.

(c)Abaye and Rava finally learn Boshes and P'gam from the Pasuk "Venasan ha'Ish ha'Shochev imah la'Avi ha'Na'arah Chamishim Shekel ...

1. ... Tachas asher Inah" from which Abaye extrapolates that - the fifty Shekel covers the Inuy (the anguish) and nothing else.

2. ... " from which Rava extrapolateds that - the fifty Shekalim pay for the Bi'ah, but not for anything else.