פירוש על ערכין 3:7

יש בערכין להקל ולהחמיר וכו' – all of them are explained further on in our chapter.

The law of evaluation is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict.
The law of the field of possession is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict.
The law concerning a warned ox that has killed a slave is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict.
The law of the rapist and the seducer and the defamer is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict.
The law of evaluation is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict. How so? Whether one has evaluated the fairest in Israel, or the ugliest in Israel, he must pay fifty selas. But if he said: “Behold, his monetary worth is upon me,” he pays only as much as he is worth.
Like the second chapter, the third chapter also begins with a discussion of evaluations and through associative thinking goes on to discuss other laws that have a similar phenomenon. In this case, the phenomenon is that sometimes the law is lenient and sometimes it is strict.
Sections 2-4 will be explained in mishnayot 2-5, so I will not explain them here.
Section five: This section demonstrates how sometimes the laws of evaluation are strict and sometimes they are lenient. If a person vows the evaluation of a very good looking person, one who might be worth more than 50 selas, he still owes only 50 selas, because the Torah determines the person’s value as such. This is a leniency. But if the person is ugly and is really worth less than 50 selas, the vower still pays 50 selas. This is a stringency. We should note that this is true as long as the person’s whose worth is being donated is a male between the ages of 20 and 50. For older and younger males and for females, the evaluation is different. Nevertheless, the principle would be the same for all.
As we explained in the introduction, if the vower uses the word “monetary worth” instead of “value” then he owes the actual worth, be it higher for the good looking person, or lower for the ugly person.

את הנאה שבישראל – even if he is worth one-hundred Maneh, he does not give other than fifty Selah, and that is rule leniently. And to rule stringently, that a person pledges the valuation of the ugliest among the Israelites, even that he is not worth anything other than five Selah. He gives fifty Selah if the person being valuated is between the ages of twenty and sixty.

בחולת המחוז – around the city. That which is not all that praiseworthy because of the treading of the feet.

Introduction Leviticus 27:16 states, “If anyone consecrates to the Lord any land that he holds, its assessment shall be in accordance with its seed requirement: fifty shekels of silver to a homer of barley seed.” Verse 22 of the same chapter deals with a case where a person dedicated land that he purchased. Our mishnah deals with both of these laws. The same topic will be discussed again later in tractate Arakhin.

חולות – surrounding [of a town] (Jastrow defines this as the “sand-plain of the Mahoz (district of Semaria). Like (Tractate Kilayim, Chapter 4, Mishnah 2): “the outer space of the vineyard”/מחול הכרם.

“The law of the field of possession is sometimes lenient and sometimes strict.”
How so? Whether one dedicates a field in the sandy plain of Mahoz or in the orchards of Savaste, [if he would redeem it] he must pay fifty shekels of silver for [every part of the field sufficient for] the sowing of a homer of barley. Similar to a case where a person dedicated the value of another human being, when one dedicates a field of possession, meaning one that is part of his ancestral inheritance, he must pay a fixed amount in order to redeem the field. That amount is set by the Torah as being fifty shekels of silver for every part of a field that can grow enough to sow a “homer” of barley. This is a standard amount set by what an average field can produce. It is not based on what the field actually dedicated produces. There are two regions mentioned in this section. The first is the sandy plains of a region called “Mahoz.” I do not know where this region is, but since there are many sandy regions in Israel, and “Mahoz” is a generic term meaning “the district” it probably could be in a variety of different places. Savaste is in Samaria. According to Albeck, Herod expanded this area and planted there gardens and orchards, and he was the one who called it by this name.

מחוז – a city. Another explanation of מחוז – name of a place where its fields are not important.

But if it was a field which he bought, he must pay what it is worth. If he dedicated a field that he bought and not one that he inherited, when he redeems the field he owes whatever the field is actually worth.

פרדסאות (pleasure gardens) – a place where there are a lot of gardens planted.

Rabbi Eliezer says: it is all the same whether it is a field of possession or one that he bought. What is the difference between the field of possession and one that he bought? A field of possession he must pay the [added] fifth, whereas for a field that he has bought he need not pay the added fifth. Rabbi Eliezer reads these verses differently and holds that in both cases, the person must redeem the field for fifty shekels of silver for [every part of the field sufficient for] the sowing of a homer of barley. The only difference between the two is that when one redeems a dedicated field of possession he must add an extra fifth (see Leviticus 27:19), whereas when one dedicates a field which he bought, he need not add the extra fifth. Chapter seven will deal more with this subject.

סבסטי – name of a place. And the trees there are very exalted.

בית זרע חומר שעורים בחמשים שקל כסף (see Leviticus 27:16: “[If anyone consecrates to the LORD any land that he holds,] its assessment shall be in accordance with its seed requirement: fifty shekels of silver to a HOMER of barley seed.”) If it is the beginning of the Jubilee cycle. But if not, he deducts from the years that have passed a Selah and a Pundiyon (i.e. 16 Perutah or 2 Issar) per year. [For every part of a field that suffices for] the vowing of a HOMER of barley, a place that is appropriate for sowing a KOR, that is thirty SEAH of barley, and it is larger than the place of sowing a KOR of wheat. But the person who dedicates the field of possession that is filled with trees, when he redeems them , he deems the trees at their worth, and then returns and redeems the land, its assessment shall be in accordance with its seed requirement: fifty shekels of silver to a HOMER of barley seed.

ובשדה מקנה נותן את שויו – for in a field which he has bought, it is written (Leviticus 27:23): “The priest shall compute for him the proportionate assessment [up to the jubilee year, and he shall pay the assessment as of that day,” but the proportionate assessment is not other than the number of coins, which are according to what it is worth, and similar, it (i.e., the Torah) states (Numbers 31:28): “You shall exact a levy [for the LORD: in the case of the warriors who engaged in the campaign, one item in five hundred, of persons, oxen, asses, and sheep].”

אחד שדה אחוזה ואחד שדה מקנה – for it is stated [in the Torah] regarding the ancestral field/field of possession (Leviticus 27:18): “the priest shall compute,” and regarding the acquired field it is stated (Leviticus 27:23): “the priest shall compute for him [the proportionate assessment up to the jubilee year],” just as regarding an ancestral field it is a fixed amount, so also, it is a fixed amount for an acquired field, “which is fifty shekels of silver [for every part of a field that suffices for] the sowing of a HOMER of barley” (see Leviticus 27:16 -and Tractate Arakhin, Chapter 7, Mishnah 1).

ובשדה מקנה אינו נותן חומש – that regarding an acquired field, it is written (Leviticus 27:23): “[the priest shall compute for him] the proportionate assessment [up to the jubilee year],” Scripture makes an analogy to valuation/Arakhin, just as regarding valuation, one does not include an added fifth, even with regard to an acquired field, one does not add a fifth. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.

המית בן חורין נותן את שוויו – as it is written (Exodus 21:30): “If ransom is laid upon him, he must pay whatever is laid upon him to redeem his life,” the fee for the one who suffered damage.

Introduction Today’s mishnah deals with the warned ox, the “muad.” This is an ox that has gored three times. The owner of a “warned ox” that kills a person is liable to pay the value of the person (see Exodus 21:30). However, if the ox kills a slave, he pays 30 shekels no matter the value of the slave (vs. 32).

חבל בזה ובזה – whether on a slave or a free person, and he did not kill him, he pays full damages.

“The law concerning a warned ox that has killed a slave is sometimes lenient and sometimes strict.”
How so? Whether it killed the fine looking slave or an ugly slave, he must pay thirty selas. If a warned ox kills a slave, the owner of the ox pays thirty selas (equivalent to the Torah’s shekels) to the slave’s owner, no matter how valuable the slave was. Sometimes this can create a stringency (if the slave was worth less) and sometimes a leniency (if the slave was worth more).

If it killed a free man he must pay what he is worth. As stated in the introduction, if the ox kills a free person, he must pay the value of the person, no matter the how great or small the value is. The fixed amount is only for the slave.

If it wounded, whether this one or the other, he must pay the full damage. The distinction between the slave and the free person is only in case the ox kills one of them. If the ox wounds them, its owner is liable to pay the actual worth in both cases.

פגם – they estimate how much a person wants to give whether for a virgin maid-servant or a maid-servant who has already had sexual relations to marry her off to his male servant that he has gratification/satisfaction from.

Introduction Our mishnah deals with the rapist or seducer, topics discussed in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and Exodus 22:15-16. As was the case with the warned ox, any time the Torah sets a fixed amount as a fine, the result can be lenient or strict.

לפי המבייש ומהתבייש – a disgraced person who is bashful, and the one upon whom the indignity is inflicted, according to the importance of his embarrassment (see also Tractate Ketubot, Chapter 3, Mishnah 7).

“The law of the rapist and seducer is sometimes lenient and sometimes strict.”
How so? Whether he raped or seduced a girl from among the best of the priestly stock or the humblest in Israel, he must pay fifty selas. Whether one rapes or seduces a girl from a good family, for instance a priestly family, or from a humble/poor family, he pays the father fifty selas as compensation. This fine is fixed no matter how much the girl is actually worth. It is interesting to note that unlike the case of evaluations or killing the slave, where the mishnah referred to the looks of the one evaluated or killed, here the mishnah refers to the family of the girl. This probably reveals quite a bit about marriage choices in mishnaic times. A girl’s worth was largely dependent upon her familial status and far less upon her individual personal characteristics. A girl from a good family was worth more in the eyes of the society than one from a lesser family. While this is not at all surprising, it is still interesting to note such concrete evidence of this social phenomenon.

But compensation for shaming and for blemish is in accord with the [circumstances] of him who shames and of the one who suffers the shame. Deuteronomy and Exodus refer only to a fine paid to the father by a man who rapes or seduces his daughter. The rabbis made an innovation that rape is to be treated also as a case of personal injury to the girl, and not just a loss to the father. A rapist is liable to pay not only a fine, but also compensation for shaming her and her family and for any blemish that occurred. In truth he is also liable to pay for her suffering and any loss of work. These amounts, unlike the fine, are not set by the Torah. When it comes to shaming, the payment depends upon the social status of the shamer and the person who was shamed. This halakhah is true in all cases of personal injury. For more information see Ketubot 3:7.

נמצא האומר בפיו יתר מן העושה מעשה – the person who says: “I did not find her to be a virgin” gives/pays [a fine of] one-hundred [shekel] and he rapist [and seducer] who reveals her virginity through an action gives fifty [shekel].

Introduction The final mishnah of this chapter refers to the “defamer,” one who falsely claims that a girl he married was not a virgin (see Deuteronomy 22: 13-22).

גזר דין – to not enter into the Land [of Israel].

The law of the defamer is sometimes lenient and sometimes strict.
How so? Whether he defamed a girl from among the best of the priestly stock or the humblest in Israel, he must pay one hundred selas. The Torah sets a one hundred shekel fine for the defamer, no matter whether he defamed a girl from a good family or from a lesser family. Again, any time the Torah sets an amount, this will create a potential stringency and a potential leniency as well, depending on the actual circumstances.

זה עשר פעמים – this is written regarding the Spies (Numbers 14:22), that implies that their legal sentence was sealed on this (i.e., the evil report that they shared about the Promised Land when they returned from their forty-day spy mission).

Thus it turns out that he who speaks with his mouth suffers more than he that commits an act. Here the mishnah notes the paradox that a man who rapes or seduces a girl pays a fine of fifty shekels, whereas one who defames her pays double the amount. This is generalized into a value statement one who speaks against someone with his mouth can, at least at times, do more harm than one who acts out physically.

For thus we have also found that the judgment against our fathers in the wilderness was sealed only because of their evil tongue, as it is written: “Yet you have tested me these ten times, and you have not listened to My voice” (Numbers 14:22). The mishnah now midrashically connects this idea with the Israelites’ experience in the desert. After complaining to God about the report of the spies (see Numbers 14:1-3), God says that they have tested Him “ten times.” These ten times surely included not only the Israelites’ typical grumbling, but physical acts as well (for instance, worshipping the golden calf). Nevertheless, the terrible punishment that none of the adults who left Egypt would reach Canaan (save Caleb and Joshua) was not meted out until this instance. Furthermore, the following verse states, “All those who have vexed Me shall not see it (the land of Canaan).” This implies that the punishment was for verbally vexing God.