## Gittin Daf 49a

###### Gittin 49a:1
[Gittin 49a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/49a:1)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה עִידִּית דְּנִיזָּק כְּזִיבּוּרִית דְּמַזִּיק; רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל סָבַר: בִּדְנִיזָּק שָׁיְימִינַן, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: בִּדְמַזִּיק שָׁיְימִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing with a case **where,** after appraising the damage, the court comes to collect from the one who caused the damage, but he does not have money available to pay for the damage he caused. And the *tanna’im* disagree in a case where **the superior-quality land** of **the injured** party **was equal** in quality **to the inferior-quality land** of **the one who caused the damage,** and the one who caused the damage also has land of superior quality. With regard to such a case, **Rabbi Yishmael holds: We appraise** the value of the land **of the injured** party, and therefore the one who caused the damage can pay with his inferior-quality fields, which are equal in quality to the best fields owned by the injured party. **And Rabbi Akiva holds: We appraise** the value of the land **of the one who caused the damage** and have him pay with his fields of superior quality.


###### Gittin 49a:2
[Gittin 49a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/49a:2)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל? נֶאֶמְרָה ״שָׂדֶה״ לְמַטָּה, וְנֶאֶמְרָה ״שָׂדֶה״ לְמַעְלָה; מָה שָׂדֶה הָאֲמוּרָה לְמַעְלָה – דְּנִיזָּק, אַף שָׂדֶה הָאֲמוּרָה לְמַטָּה – דְּנִיזָּק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is the reason of Rabbi Yishmael?** The word **“field” is stated below,** toward the end of the verse: “Of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he pay” (Exodus 22:4). **And** the word **“field” is** also **stated above,** at the beginning of that same verse: “If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall put in his beast, and shall feed in another man’s field.” **Just as** the **field which is stated above** belongs to **the injured** party, **so too, the field stated below** belongs to **the injured** party.


###### Gittin 49a:3
[Gittin 49a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/49a:3)

וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: ״מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ יְשַׁלֵּם״ – דְּהַאיְךְ דְּקָא מְשַׁלֵּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Akiva holds:** When the verse says: **“Of the best of his own field** and of the best of his own vineyard **shall he pay,”** it means from the best **of** the one **who is paying,** i.e., from the best fields belonging to the one who caused the damage.


###### Gittin 49a:4
[Gittin 49a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/49a:4)

וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: אַהֲנַי גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה וְאַהֲנִי קְרָא; אַהֲנַי גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה – לִכְדַאֲמַרַן. אַהֲנִי קְרָא – דְּאִי אִית לֵיהּ לְמַזִּיק עִידִּית וְזִיבּוּרִית, וְזִיבּוּרִית דִּידֵיהּ לָא שָׁוְיָא כְּעִידִּית דְּנִיזָּק – דִּמְשַׁלֵּם לֵיהּ מִמֵּיטַב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** how would **Rabbi Yishmael** respond to this? The **verbal analogy** between the two instances of the word “field” **is effective, and** the straightforward meaning of **the verse** itself **is effective. The verbal analogy is effective, as we said.** It serves to teach that when it says that he pays from the best of his field, it means from land equal in quality to the best field owned by the injured party. And the straightforward meaning of **the verse** itself **is effective,** as it serves to teach a different *halakha*, namely, **that if the one who caused the damage has superior-quality land and inferior-quality land, and his inferior-quality land is not as good as the superior-quality land** belonging to **the injured** party, **the one who caused the damage pays** the injured party **from** his **best** land, i.e., from the superior-quality land that he owns.


###### Gittin 49a:5
[Gittin 49a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/49a:5)

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: לֹא בָּא הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא לַגְבּוֹת לַנִּיזָּקִין מִן הָעִידִּית, וְקַל וָחוֹמֶר לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The *baraita* teaches that **Rabbi Akiva says: The verse comes only to** allow **injured** parties **to collect** compensation **from superior-quality land** belonging to the one who caused the damage, in the event that he has no money or movable property. **And** by means of **an *a fortiori*** inference one can derive that the **Temple** treasury collects from superior-quality land.


###### Gittin 49a:6
[Gittin 49a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/49a:6)

מַאי קַל וָחוֹמֶר לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ? אִילֵימָא דְּנַגְחֵיהּ תּוֹרָא דִידַן לְתוֹרָא דְהֶקְדֵּשׁ, ״שׁוֹר רֵעֵהוּ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא – וְלֹא שׁוֹר שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** is the ***a fortiori*** inference from ordinary damage **to** damage involving the **consecrated** property? To which case does this refer? **If we say** that **our ox,** i.e., an ox belonging to a Jew, **gored an ox that is consecrated** property, there is a difficulty, as **the Merciful One states:** “And if one man’s ox hurts **another’s ox”** (Exodus 21:35). This teaches that the *halakha* applies only if the ox hurt an ox belonging to another Jew, **but not** if it hurt **an ox that is consecrated** property. In the latter case no damages are collected.


###### Gittin 49a:7
[Gittin 49a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/49a:7)

אֶלָּא לָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי מָנֶה לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת״, דְּאָתֵי גִּזְבָּר וְשָׁקֵיל מֵעִידִּית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** we say that the *a fortiori* inference is not referring to a case of damage, but rather **to one who says: It is** incumbent **upon me** to donate **one hundred dinars for Temple maintenance,** and the inference teaches that if the one who took the vow has no money, then the Temple **treasurer comes and collects** the hundred dinars **from** his **superior-quality land.**


###### Gittin 49a:8
[Gittin 49a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/49a:8)

לֹא יְהֵא אֶלָּא בַּעַל חוֹב, וּבַעַל חוֹב דִּינוֹ בְּבֵינוֹנִית! וְכִי תֵּימָא: קָסָבַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בַּעַל חוֹב שָׁקֵיל בְּעִידִּית כְּנִיזָּקִין, אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְבַעַל חוֹב שֶׁכֵּן יִפָּה כֹּחוֹ בְּנִיזָּקִין, תֹּאמַר בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁכֵּן הוֹרַע כֹּחוֹ בְּנִיזָּקִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this understanding: The Temple treasurer **should not** be treated any better than an ordinary **creditor, and,** as stated in the mishna, the ***halakha* of a creditor is** that he collects only **from intermediate-quality land. And if you would say** that **Rabbi Akiva holds** that even **a creditor** can **collect** the money owed him **from superior-quality land like payment for damages,** there is still a difficulty; the *a fortiori* inference **can** still **be refuted** in the following manner: **If** an ordinary **creditor** can collect the money owed him from superior-quality land, this is **because** the Torah **enhanced his power with regard to payment for damages,** as a common person can collect payment for damages caused him by another’s ox. But **can you say** the same about the **Temple** treasury, with regard to which the Torah **weakened its power with regard to payment for damages,** not allowing it to collect such compensation?


###### Gittin 49a:9
[Gittin 49a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/49a:9)

לְעוֹלָם דְּנַגְחֵיהּ תּוֹרָא דִידַן לְתוֹרָא דְהֶקְדֵּשׁ, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא – דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא אוֹמֵר: שׁוֹר שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנָּגַח לְשׁוֹר שֶׁל הֶדְיוֹט – פָּטוּר, וְשֶׁל הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁנָּגַח לְשׁוֹר שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ – בֵּין תָּם וּבֵין מוּעָד, מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **Actually,** we can explain that we are dealing here with a case **where our ox gored an ox that is consecrated** property, **and Rabbi Akiva holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya** with regard to this issue, **as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says:** If **an ox that is consecrated** property **gored an ox belonging to a common person,** the Temple treasury is **exempt** from liability. By contrast, if an ox **belonging to a common person gored an ox that is consecrated** property, **whether** the ox that gored the other ox was **an innocuous** ox [*shor **tam*****],** i.e., an ox with no consistent history of causing damage with the intent to injure, **or** it was **a forewarned** ox [*shor **muad*****],** i.e., an ox whose owner was forewarned because his ox had already gored another ox three times, the ox’s owner **pays** the **full** cost of the **damage.**


###### Gittin 49a:10
[Gittin 49a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/49a:10)

אִי הָכִי, מִמַּאי דִּבְעִידִּית דְּנִיזָּק כְּזִיבּוּרִית דְּמַזִּיק פְּלִיגִי? דִּלְמָא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא בִּדְנִיזָּק שָׁיְימִינַן, וְהָכָא בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא וְרַבָּנַן קָמִיפַּלְגִי –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so, from where** do you know to say that Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael **disagree about** a case where **the superior-quality land** belonging to **the injured** party **is equal** in quality **to the inferior-quality land** belonging to **the one who caused the damage,** and the one who caused the damage also has land of superior quality, as the dispute was previously interpreted by Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov? **Perhaps everyone,** including Rabbi Akiva, **agrees** that **we appraise** the value of the land **of the injured** party, **and here they disagree with regard to** the **dispute between Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya and the Rabbis.**


###### Gittin 49a:11
[Gittin 49a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/49a:11)

דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא, וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבָּנַן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains this suggestion: **As Rabbi Akiva holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya,** that in the case of damage caused by the ox of a common person to the property of the Temple treasury, compensation is collected from superior-quality land belonging to the one who caused the damage. **And Rabbi Yishmael holds in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** that the owner of the ox bears no liability.


###### Gittin 49a:12
[Gittin 49a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/49a:12)

אִם כֵּן, מַאי ״לֹא בָּא הַכָּתוּב״? וְעוֹד, מַאי ״קַל וָחוֹמֶר לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ״? וְעוֹד, הָא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **If it is so** that this is the disagreement, then **what** is the meaning of Rabbi Akiva’s statement: **The verse comes only** to allow injured parties to collect compensation from superior-quality land? This indicates that Rabbi Akiva disagrees about how to understand this verse. **And furthermore,** if the subject is the Temple treasury, **what** is the meaning of: **And** by means of **an *a fortiori*** inference one can derive that the Temple treasury of **consecrated** property collects from superior-quality land. **And furthermore, didn’t Rav Ashi say:**