## Arakhin Daf 14b

###### Arakhin 14b:1
[Arakhin 14b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/14b:1)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִם אֶת שְׂדֵה מִקְנָתוֹ אֲשֶׁר לֹא מִשְּׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּתוֹ״ — שָׂדֶה שֶׁאֵינָהּ שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה, יָצְתָה זוֹ שֶׁהִיא שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The verse states** with regard to a purchased field: “And **if** he sanctifies to the Lord **a field that he has bought, which is not of his ancestral field”** (Leviticus 27:22). The verse is referring specifically to **a field that is not an ancestral field** at the time of its consecration. This requirement **excludes this** field, **as** currently, after the death of the father, **it is an ancestral field.**


###### Arakhin 14b:2
[Arakhin 14b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/14b:2)

אִילּוּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וּלְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, אֲפִילּוּ הִקְדִּישָׁהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת אָב — שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה הָוְיָא. מַאי טַעְמָא? אִי מִשּׁוּם קְרָא — קְרָא לְכִדְרַבִּי מֵאִיר הוּא דַּאֲתָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the *baraita*. That is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, **whereas** according to **Rabbi Yehuda and according to Rabbi Shimon it is** considered **an ancestral field even if he consecrated** the field **and afterward his father dies. What is the reason** for this opinion? **If** you suggest it is **due to the verse,** that cannot be, as **the verse comes** to teach the *halakha* that was stated **in accordance** with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** i.e., it is referring to a case where the father died before he consecrated the field, as Rabbi Meir explained.


###### Arakhin 14b:3
[Arakhin 14b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/14b:3)

אֶלָּא לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּאָזֵיל בָּתַר פִּדְיוֹן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, is it not due to** the fact **that** he **follows** the status of the field at the time of the **redemption?** Since the father died before the son redeemed the field it is considered an ancestral field in the possession of the Temple treasury. Similarly, if one first consecrates the trees and afterward the field, he should redeem them both together, since at the time of the redemption they are both consecrated. Since this ruling is not in accordance with the *baraita* that states that the trees and field are redeemed separately, evidently the *baraita* cannot be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.


###### Arakhin 14b:4
[Arakhin 14b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/14b:4)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן קְרָא אַשְׁכַּחוּ וּדְרוּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said** that this source does not contradict Rav Huna’s claim that the *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. The reason is that **Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon** do not, in fact, maintain that one follows the status of the field at the time of the redemption. Rather, they **found a verse and expounded it.**


###### Arakhin 14b:5
[Arakhin 14b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/14b:5)

אִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא: ״אִם אֶת שְׂדֵה מִקְנָתוֹ אֲשֶׁר לֹא אֲחֻזָּתוֹ״, מַאי ״מִשְּׂדֵה״ — שָׂדֶה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לִהְיוֹת שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak explains Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning: **If so,** that when one consecrated the field and his father died afterward, it is not considered an ancestral field, **let the Merciful One write** in the Torah: And **if** he sanctifies to the Lord **a field that he has bought, which is not his ancestral,** i.e., the verse could have omitted the repetition of the phrase “of his field.” **What** does the Torah mean by stressing **“of his field”?** This teaches that only **a field that is not fit to be an ancestral field** at the time he consecrated it is redeemed for its value. But if he consecrated a field that he would inherit in the future, it is redeemed in the manner of an ancestral field.


###### Arakhin 14b:6
[Arakhin 14b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/14b:6)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הִקְדִּישׁ טְרָשִׁין — פּוֹדָן בְּשׇׁוְויָן, מַאי טַעְמָא? ״בֵּית זֶרַע״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְהָנֵי לָאו בְּנֵי זְרִיעָה נִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Pappa says:** If one **consecrated** fields that are **rocky [*terashin*]** and unsuitable for planting, **he redeems them by their value,** not as ancestral fields. The Gemara asks: **What is the reason? The Merciful One states** that one redeems **an area** fit **for sowing** of a *ḥomer* of barley seed for fifty silver shekels (see Leviticus 27:16), **and these** fields **are not fit for sowing.**


###### Arakhin 14b:7
[Arakhin 14b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/14b:7)

לֹא גְּאָלָן — יוֹצְאִין [לַכֹּהֲנִים] בַּיּוֹבֵל, מַאי טַעְמָא? ״שָׂדֶה״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, כֹּל דְּהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But if **he did not redeem** these fields before the Jubilee Year, **they go** to the priests **in the Jubilee** Year, like ancestral fields. **What is the reason? The Merciful One states:** “And if he will not redeem the **field,** or if he has sold the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed anymore. But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy to the Lord, as a field devoted; it shall belong to the priest” (Leviticus 27:20–21). This indicates that **any kind** of ancestral field at all, regardless of quality, goes to the priests if it is not redeemed by the Jubilee Year.


###### Arakhin 14b:8
[Arakhin 14b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/14b:8)

מָכַר טְרָשִׁין — נִגְאָלִין פָּחוֹת מִשְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים, מַאי טַעְמָא? ״מִסְפַּר שְׁנֵי תְבוּאוֹת״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְהַאי לָאו בְּנֵי תְבוּאָה נִינְהוּ. לֹא גְּאָלָן — (חוֹזֶרֶת) [חוֹזְרִין] לַבְּעָלִים בַּיּוֹבֵל, מַאי טַעְמָא? ״וְשָׁב לַאֲחוּזָּתוֹ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְהַאי נָמֵי אֲחוּזָּה הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Furthermore, Rav Pappa says: If one **sold** fields that are **rocky** and unsuitable for planting, **they may be redeemed** from the purchaser **in** even **less than two years,** despite the fact that normally land must be left in the hands of the purchaser for at least two years (see 29b), as derived from the plural term “years of the crops” cited below. **What is the reason? The Merciful One states:** “According to the number of years after the Jubilee you shall buy from your neighbor, and according to **the number of years of the crops** he shall sell it to you” (Leviticus 25:15), **and these** rocky fields **are not fit for crops.** But if **he did not redeem them** from the purchaser, **they return to the owner in the Jubilee** Year, like ancestral fields. **What is the reason? The Merciful One states:** “Then let him count the years of its sale, and restore the extra to the man to whom he sold it; **and it shall return to its ancestral** heritage” (Leviticus 25:27), **and this** rocky field **is also** part of his **ancestral** heritage.


###### Arakhin 14b:9
[Arakhin 14b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/14b:9)

הִקְדִּישׁ אִילָנוֹת — (פּוֹדֶה) [פּוֹדָן] בְּשׇׁוְויֵהֶן, מַאי טַעְמָא? ״בֵּית זֶרַע״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא אִילָנוֹת. לֹא גְּאָלָן — אֵין יוֹצְאִין לַכֹּהֲנִים בַּיּוֹבֵל, ״וְהָיָה הַשָּׂדֶה״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא אִילָנוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Pappa further says: If one **consecrated trees** in his ancestral field, **he redeems** them according **to their value. What is the reason? The Merciful One states** that one redeems **an area** fit **for sowing** of a *ḥomer* of barley seed for fifty silver shekels. This is referring specifically to land fit for sowing grain, **and not trees.** Furthermore, if **he did not redeem** the trees, they **do not go to the priests in the Jubilee** Year, unlike an ancestral field. The reason is that **the Merciful One states: “But the field,** when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy to the Lord, as a field devoted; it shall belong to the priest” (Leviticus 27:21). This too is referring specifically to a field, **and not trees.**


###### Arakhin 14b:10
[Arakhin 14b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/14b:10)

מָכַר אִילָנוֹת — אֵין נִגְאָלִין פָּחוֹת מִשְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים, מַאי טַעְמָא? ״שְׁנֵי תְבוּאוֹת״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְהָנֵי בְּנֵי תְבוּאוֹת נִינְהוּ. לֹא גְּאָלָן — אֵין חוֹזֶרֶת לַבְּעָלִים בְּיוֹבֵל, מַאי טַעְמָא? ״וְשָׁב לַאֲחוּזָּתוֹ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא אִילָנוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Pappa also says: If one **sold trees** of his ancestral field, **they may not be redeemed** from the purchaser if **less than two years** passed. **What is the reason? The Merciful One states:** “According to the number of years after the Jubilee you shall buy it from your neighbor, and according to the number of **years of the crops** he shall sell it to you” (Leviticus 25:15), **and these** trees **are fit for crops,** as they produce fruit. But if **he did not redeem them** from the purchaser, the trees **do not return to the owner in the Jubilee** Year. **What is the reason? The Merciful One states:** “Then let him count the years of its sale, and restore the extra to the man to whom he sold it; **and it shall return to its ancestral** heritage” (Leviticus 25:27). This includes only land, which remains forever, **and not trees,** which have a limited lifespan.


###### Arakhin 14b:11
[Arakhin 14b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/14b:11)

אָמַר מָר: הִקְדִּישׁ אִילָנוֹת — (פּוֹדֶה) [פּוֹדָן] בְּשׇׁוְויָן. אַמַּאי? וְלִיקְדְּשׁוּ אַגַּב אַרְעַיְיהוּ, וְלִיפְרְקוּהָ אַגַּב אַרְעַיְיהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **The Master,** i.e., Rav Pappa, **says** that if one **consecrated trees** in his ancestral field **he redeems** them according **to their value.** The Gemara asks: **Why** is that so? **But let them be consecrated on account of their land and let them be redeemed on account of their land,** according to the valuation of fifty silver shekels for each area required for sowing a *kor* of barley seed.


###### Arakhin 14b:12
[Arakhin 14b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/14b:12)

וְכִי תֵּימָא: אִילָנוֹת אַקְדֵּישׁ, אַרְעָא לָא אַקְדֵּישׁ — וְהָאָמְרִי נְהַרְדָּעֵי: מַאן דִּמְזַבֵּן לֵיהּ דִּקְלָא לְחַבְרֵיהּ, קָנֵי לֵיהּ מִשִּׁיפּוּלָא וְעַד תְּהוֹמָא! לָאו מִי אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ: בְּבָא מֵחֲמַת טַעֲנָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that **he consecrated the trees** and **did not consecrate land, but didn’t** the Sages **of Neharde’a say:** If **one sells** a date **palm to another,** the purchaser **acquires it from the bottom** of the palm **until the depths** of the earth, i.e., including its land. The Gemara answers: **Wasn’t it stated with regard to this** ruling that it is referring only to a case **where** the purchaser **comes due to** a specific **claim** that he purchased the land under the date palm. But if he does not claim to have explicitly purchased the land, the seller or the one who consecrates does not intend to include land with the date palm.


###### Arakhin 14b:13
[Arakhin 14b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/14b:13)

שְׂדֵה מִקְנָה נוֹתֵן שׇׁוְויוֹ. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״בְּמִכְסַת״ — מַה בָּא לִלְמוֹד? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״זֶרַע חֹמֶר שְׂעוֹרִים בַּחֲמִשִּׁים שֶׁקֶל כָּסֶף״, יָכוֹל אַף שְׂדֵה מִקְנָה כֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מִכְסַת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: And with regard to **a purchased field** that one consecrates, **he gives its value** as redemption, a sum that can be more or less than fifty silver shekels for an area required for the sowing of a *kor* of barley seed. **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: “Then the priest shall reckon for him the **worth** of your valuation until the Jubilee Year; and he shall give your valuation in that day, as a holy thing to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:23). **What does this** word “worth” **come to teach? Since it is stated** with regard to an ancestral field: “An area fit for the **sowing of a *ḥomer* of barley seed is redeemed for fifty silver shekels”** (Leviticus 27:16), one **might** have thought that **a purchased field is also** redeemed using **this** formula. Therefore, **the verse states “worth,”** which means the market value of the field.


###### Arakhin 14b:14
[Arakhin 14b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/14b:14)

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״וְחִשַּׁב״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״וְחִשַּׁב״, מָה לְהַלָּן דָּבָר קָצוּב, אַף כָּאן דָּבָר קָצוּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Eliezer says: It is stated here,** with regard to purchased fields: “Then the priest **shall reckon** for him the worth of your valuation until the Jubilee Year; and he shall give your valuation in that day, as a holy thing to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:23). **And it is stated there,** with regard to an ancestral field: “But if he sanctifies his field after the Jubilee, then the priest **shall reckon** for him the money according to the years that remain until the Jubilee Year, and it shall be deducted from your valuation” (Leviticus 27:18). **Just as there,** in the case of an ancestral field, it is referring to **a fixed amount, so too here,** with regard to a purchased field, it means **a fixed amount.**


###### Arakhin 14b:15
[Arakhin 14b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/14b:15)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: רַבָּנַן אִית לְהוּ גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה, וּמַפְּקִין לֵיהּ לְחוֹמֶשׁ, אוֹ דִלְמָא לֵית לְהוּ גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה, וְלֵית לְהוּ לְחוֹמֶשׁ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised before** the students: Do **the Rabbis,** who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, **accept** that one derives **the verbal analogy** of “shall reckon,” **but they use it to** derive that one who redeems a consecrated purchased field must also add **one-fifth? Or perhaps they do not accept the verbal analogy** at all, **and they do not** hold that one who redeems a purchased field must add **one-fifth?**


###### Arakhin 14b:16
[Arakhin 14b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/14b:16)

אָמַר רָבָא: מִסְתַּבְּרָא לֵית לְהוּ גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה, מִדְּגַלִּי רַחֲמָנָא חוֹמֶשׁ גַּבֵּי שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה וְגַבֵּי מַקְדִּישׁ בֵּיתוֹ, הָווּ לֵיהּ שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד, וְכׇל שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד אֵין מְלַמְּדִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: It is reasonable** to assume that the Rabbis **do not accept the verbal analogy.** The reasoning is as follows: **From** the fact that **the Merciful One revealed** in the Torah that one must add **one-fifth in** the case of one who redeems **an ancestral field and in** the case of one who **consecrates his house, these are two verses that come as one,** i.e., to teach the same matter. **And any two verses that come as one do not teach** their common aspect, in this case, adding one-fifth, to apply to other cases. Therefore, it can be assumed that the Rabbis maintain that one who redeems his purchased field does not have to pay an additional fifth.


###### Arakhin 14b:17
[Arakhin 14b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/14b:17)

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר מְלַמְּדִין, מִדְּגַלִּי רַחֲמָנָא חוֹמֶשׁ בְּמַעֲשֵׂר, בִּבְהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה, וּבִבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה — הָוֵה לֵיהּ טוּבָא, וְאֵין מְלַמְּדִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava continues: **And** even **according to the one who says** that two verses that come as one **do teach** their common aspect, **from** the fact that **the Merciful One revealed** in the Torah that one must add **one-fifth when** he redeems his second **tithe, and when** he redeems his **kosher animal** that he consecrated and became blemished, **and when** he redeems his **non-kosher animal** that he consecrated, **these are many** verses that come at one, **and** everyone agrees that multiple verses **do not teach** their common aspect to other cases.


###### Arakhin 14b:18
[Arakhin 14b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/14b:18)

תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, וְלָא מִטַּעְמֵיהּ. תַּנְיָא: ״בְּמִכְסַת הָעֶרְכְּךָ״ — הִקִּישׁוֹ הַכָּתוּב לַעֲרָכִין, מָה עֲרָכִין אֵין מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ, אַף שְׂדֵה מִקְנָה אֵין מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It **is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the ruling **of Rava, but not for his reason. It is taught** in a *baraita*: “Then the priest shall reckon for him **the worth of your valuation** until the Jubilee Year; and he shall give your valuation in that day, as a holy thing to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:23). **The verse juxtaposes** this estimation **to** fixed **valuations. Just as** with regard to fixed **valuations** one does **not add one-fifth, so too** when redeeming **a purchased field** one does **not add one-fifth.**


###### Arakhin 14b:19
[Arakhin 14b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/14b:19)

**מַתְנִי׳** בְּשׁוֹר הַמּוּעָד שֶׁהֵמִית אֶת הָעֶבֶד לְהָקֵל וּלְהַחֲמִיר, כֵּיצַד? אֶחָד שֶׁהֵמִית אֶת הַנָּאֶה שֶׁבַּעֲבָדִים וְאֶת הַכָּעוּר שֶׁבָּעֲבָדִים — נוֹתֵן שְׁלֹשִׁים סֶלַע. הֵמִית בֶּן חוֹרִין — נוֹתֵן שׇׁוְויוֹ. חָבַל בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה — נוֹתֵן נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** There are *halakhot* **with regard to a forewarned ox that killed** a Canaanite **slave that are lenient and** others **that are stringent; how so? Both** in the case of an ox **that killed the** most **attractive among the slaves,** whose value is great, **and** likewise in the case of one that killed **the** most **unsightly among the slaves,** whose value is minimal, its owner **gives** payment of **thirty *sela*,** the fine stated in the Torah (Exodus 21:32), to the owner of the slave. If the ox **killed a freeman,** its owner **gives his price** as payment to his heirs. This sum can be more or less than thirty shekels. If the ox **injured this** slave **or that** freeman, **he gives** payment of the **full** cost of the **damage** as compensation.


###### Arakhin 14b:20
[Arakhin 14b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/14b:20)

**גְּמָ׳** בְּמוּעָד — אִין, בְּתָם — לָא. לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אַף תָּם שֶׁחָבַל בָּאָדָם מְשַׁלֵּם בַּמּוֹתָר נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** As the mishna first specifies that it is speaking of a forewarned ox, this indicates that **with regard to a forewarned ox** that injured a freeman, **yes,** one is liable for full payment, but **with regard to an innocuous** ox that injured a freeman one does **not** make full restitution, but pays only half the value of the victim. The Gemara asks: **Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva. As we learned** in a mishna (*Bava Kamma* 33a) that **Rabbi Akiva says:** The owner of **an innocuous** ox **that injured a person also pays the full** cost of the **damage with regard to the difference** between the damage the person inflicted on the ox and the damage the ox inflicted on the person. Evidently, Rabbi Akiva does not distinguish between an innocuous and a forewarned ox in a case where an ox injured a person.


###### Arakhin 14b:21
[Arakhin 14b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/14b:21)

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, הוּא הַדִּין דַּאֲפִילּוּ תָּם נָמֵי, וְאַיְּידֵי דְּקָא בָּעֵי לְמִתְנֵי סֵיפָא ״הֵמִית עֶבֶד״ ״הֵמִית בֶּן חוֹרִין״, דִּבְמוּעָד הוּא דְּמַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ, בְּתָם לָא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי קָתָנֵי מוּעָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **You** may **even say** that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva,** and explain it as follows: **The same is true that even** the owner of **an innocuous** ox must make full restitution, **but since** the *tanna* **wants to teach** in the first part of **the latter clause** of the mishna: An ox that **killed a slave** and an ox that **killed a freeman, which you find in** the case of **forewarned** ox but **in** the case of **an innocuous** ox **you do not find it,** as the penalty for killing a person does not apply to an innocuous ox, it is **for this** reason that the mishna **teaches** only the case of **a forewarned** ox.


###### Arakhin 14b:22
[Arakhin 14b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/14b:22)

**מַתְנִי׳** בָּאוֹנֵס וּבַמְפַתֶּה לְהָקֵל וּלְהַחֲמִיר, כֵּיצַד? אֶחָד שֶׁאָנַס וּפִיתָּה אֶת גְּדוֹלָה שֶׁבַּכְּהוּנָּה וְאֶת הַקְּטַנָּה שֶׁבְּיִשְׂרָאֵל — נוֹתֵן חֲמִשִּׁים סְלָעִים, וְהַבּוֹשֶׁת וְהַפְּגָם — הַכֹּל לְפִי הַמְבַיֵּישׁ וְהַמִּתְבַּיֵּישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** There are *halakhot* **with regard to a rapist and with regard to a seducer that are lenient and** others **that are stringent; how so? Both** one **who raped or seduced** a young woman **who is** the most **prominent in the priesthood and** one who raped or seduced a young woman who is **the lowliest among the Israelites gives** the payment of **fifty *sela*,** the fine stated in the Torah (see Deuteronomy 22:29). **And** the payments for **humiliation and** for **degradation** resulting from being raped or seduced are assessed differentially; it is **all based on the one who humiliates and the one who is humiliated.**


###### Arakhin 14b:23
[Arakhin 14b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/14b:23)

**גְּמָ׳** אַמַּאי? אֵימָא: ״חֲמִשִּׁים סְלָעִים״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא מִכֹּל מִילֵּי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **Why** must the rapist or seducer also pay for her humiliation and degradation? One can **say** that **the Merciful One states** in the verse: “Then the man that lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver” (Deuteronomy 22:29), that he is to pay a total of **fifty *sela* for all matters** associated with this act, i.e., the fine, degradation, humiliation, and pain.


###### Arakhin 14b:24
[Arakhin 14b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/14b:24)

אָמַר רַב זְעֵירָא: יֹאמְרוּ, בָּעַל בַּת מְלָכִים חֲמִשִּׁים, בָּעַל בַּת הֶדְיוֹטוֹת חֲמִשִּׁים?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Zeira says:** It cannot be that he pays a total of only fifty *sela*, as people **will say:** Does it make sense that **one who engaged in** forced **intercourse with,** i.e., raped, **a daughter of kings** pays a sum of **fifty** *sela*, when she suffers great humiliation, and **one who engaged in forced intercourse with the daughter of ordinary** people **[*hedyotot*]** also pays **fifty** *sela*?


###### Arakhin 14b:25
[Arakhin 14b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/14b:25)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אִי הָכִי, גַּבֵּי עֶבֶד נָמֵי, יֹאמְרוּ: עֶבֶד נוֹקֵב מַרְגָּלִית — שְׁלֹשִׁים, עֶבֶד עוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֵׂה מַחַט — שְׁלֹשִׁים? אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב זְעֵירָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rav Zeira: **If so,** the same claim can be applied **with regard to a slave** killed by an ox. People **will also say:** Does it make sense that **a slave who pierces pearls [*margalit*]** is worth **thirty** *sela*, and **a slave who performs needlecraft** is also worth **thirty** *sela*? Nevertheless, the mishna clearly indicates that there is no distinction between the two slaves, as the Torah states a fixed payment. **Rather, Rav Zeira says** that there is a different proof: