Today's שיעור will be in מסכת בבא קמא דף ז, we will start on דף ו עמוד ב, seven lines from the bottom of the עמוד. And the גמרא here is in the middle of explaining the ברייתא where we had the מחלוקת between רבי ישמעאל and רבי עקיבא. And the גמרא quotes from the ברייתא. It said in the ברייתא: רבי עקיבא אומר, רבי עקיבא said, לא בא הכתוב, the פסוק doesn't come, אלא, but, לגבות לנזקין מן העידית, to tell us that when you come to collect money for the damage that someone caused to you, you collect from the עידית, from the best of his fields. And as the גמרא explained before, the מחלוקת between רבי ישמעאל and רבי עקיבא is whether you estimate the עידית by the מזיק or by the ניזק. In other words, if the מזיק has two types of fields, he has עידית, good fields, and he has זיבורית, bad fields, but his זיבורית are worth as much as the best of the ניזק, can he give his זיבורית, being that as far as the ניזק is concerned it is עידית, or must he give his עידית? And that was the מחלוקת between רבי ישמעאל and רבי עקיבא. רבי ישמעאל learns בדניזק שמינן, that you're able to give your זיבורית because we judge it as of the ניזק, and therefore since by the ניזק it is עידית, you could give him his עידית, which means your זיבורית, and רבי עקיבא holds that the תורה comes to tell us that you must give your עידית, the מזיק's עידית, and therefore he cannot give him his זיבורית even though it is worth as much as the עידית of the ניזק, he must give him his עידית. But then

רבי עקיבא added the words: וקל וחומר להקדש, and this is a קל וחומר when it comes to paying הקדש, paying money to הקדש, then you certainly have to give עידית. And the גמרא asks: מאי קל וחומר להקדש? What does רבי עקיבא mean with these words that it's a קל וחומר that הקדש you certainly have to give the עידית of the מזיק? אילימא, if we're going to say he means very simple, דנגח תורא דידן לתורא דהקדש, that if an ox of ours, which means an ox of an ordinary person, gored and damaged an ox of הקדש, so when the person has to pay to הקדש, you also have to pay עידית, and that is the קל וחומר he had in mind, that מה דאך when you have to pay for the damage that you caused to an ordinary person you must pay from עידית, certainly if you caused the damage to הקדש you certainly have to pay of עידית. That couldn't be, because שור רעהו אמר רחמנא, the תורה, when it says that you have to pay for the damage that was caused by the goring of your ox, says בפירוש in the תורה that if an ox of a person will gore the ox of his friend, then you have to pay. So we דרש'ן, ולא שור של הקדש, not if it gores an ox of הקדש. In other words, from this פסוק we learn out that whenever you cause damage to הקדש you are פטור completely. The whole דין of חיוב נזקין, of responsibility to pay for a נזק, is only if it happened to a הדיוט, to an ordinary person. But if it happened to הקדש, you don't have to pay at all. So we can't say that this is what רבי עקיבא meant when he said that קל וחומר להקדש, that certainly you have to pay עידית when it's הקדש, because when you damage הקדש you are פטור completely. And even though the פסוק the גמרא brings to show that if you damage הקדש you are פטור completely is the פסוק שור רעהו, which speaks about קרן, that if one's ox gored an ox of הקדש you are פטור, but the תורה does not tell us that you are פטור if the damage happened some other way, but רש''י says that the same דין applies to all types of נזקין. And

תוספות goes into details to tell us how we know that anyway you damage הקדש you are פטור. And then רש''י says a different פשט: that the גמרא couldn't have mentioned the case of שן, for instance, that an ox of a הדיוט, an ox of an ordinary person, ate from the field of הקדש, and you are חייב to pay for that, and then maybe the דין would be that even though the damage was done to הקדש you still are חייב to pay, so רש''י says there is no case possible for an animal of a הדיוט to eat from a field of הקדש. Because he says, what kind of field is it? Is it a field which is called שדי חרם, a field that was given to הקדש under the category of חרם, so the דין is that the חרם goes to the כהנים, and it doesn't go to הקדש. So it becomes property of the כהנים, but it's not holy property. It is not הקדש. It is personal property of the כהנים, and has the same דין of הדיוט. So רבי עקיבא couldn't have meant that when he said קל וחומר להקדש. It also can't mean, רש''י says, that if an animal ate from the field that was given to הקדש to בדק הבית, let's say someone donated a field that the worth, the value of that field, should be used for בדק הבית, for fixing the upkeep of the בית המקדש, and that would be considered a field of הקדש. So רש"י says that that usually wouldn't happen, because it doesn't last long under the ownership of הקדש, because or the owner himself, the one that donated it to הקדש, would redeem it right away, or someone else would redeem it, and the דין would be if someone else redeems it, not the owner himself, then by יובל it goes back to the כהנים. So it is hard to find a case where an animal should eat from a field of הקדש, a field that belongs to בדק הבית. And if we're going to say it did happen, after it was donated to בדק הבית, before anyone had a chance to redeem it, so רש"י says, then also we wouldn't be חייב because the דין is that אין מעילה בקרקעות, that there is no דין of מעילה. מעילה which means that when you have, use pleasure from anything belongs to הקדש, you are מועל בהקדש. But if it's קרקע, if it is property, real estate, then there is no דין מעילה, and so, too, anything which is מחובר לקרקע, anything which is connected to the ground. So if an animal ate the fruit of the field, which is connected to the ground, so it wouldn't have a דין of מעילה. So then this the גמרא couldn't mention either. And therefore, the

גמרא only mentions the case of a שור, an ox of an ordinary person that gored an ox of הקדש, and that's what the גמרא thought רבי עקיבא meant when he said קל וחומר להקדש, that when you have to pay to הקדש, you have to pay with עידית, and the גמרא says that couldn't be, because we learn out from the פסוק שור רעהו, that if your animal gores an animal of הקדש, you are פטור בכלל. So we're back to the question, what did רבי עקיבא mean when he said קל וחומר להקדש? The גמרא says, אלא so we must say, באומר, it refers to a case of a person who says, הרי עלי מנה לבדק הבית, I take upon myself to give a מנה to בדק הבית, to הקדש. So the דין would be דאתי גזבר, the גבאי, the treasurer of הקדש would come, ושקיל מעידית, he would take from the עידית, that when it comes to pay that donation that he promised to give, he must give from the עידית, from the best of his property. Maybe that's what רבי עקיבא meant, קל וחומר להקדש, that מה כש, when you damage a הדיוט, an ordinary person, and you come to pay for the damage, you must pay from the עידית, certainly if you promise to give money to הקדש, you certainly have to give from the עידית. So the גמרא says that couldn't be, because לא יהא אלא בעל חוב, let him be not more than a בעל חוב. All it is is that he owes money to הקדש, so he has the same דין like a regular case of a person who owes money to somebody. And the דין is ובעל חוב בבינונית, that when a בעל חוב comes to collect, if the person who is owed the money comes to collect his חוב, his loan, the דין is בבינונית, that he only could collect בבינונית. Because, as the rule is that there are three categories. Usually, we know that there are three types of fields: עידית, which is the best, בינונית, which is the middle, the average, and זיבורית, which is the worst, the bad quality of fields. And the דין is like this: that when you come to collect נזקין, collect money for damage that someone caused, so then you collect מעידית, he has to pay from the best of the fields. When you come to collect a חוב, if a lender comes to collect from the borrower, so he gets בינונית. He collects from the average, the middle kind. A woman who comes to collect her כתובה, the כתובה that was written by her husband, where it says that if he dies or if he will divorce her, he will have to give her מאתים זוז, so when she comes to collect her כתובה, she gets from זיבורית, from the worst. And this is what the גמרא says here: that we cannot say that what did רבי עקיבא mean that הקדש collects from עידית is a case if somebody promised to give money to הקדש, so later he has to pay that promise through עידית, because why should he be better than a בעל חוב? And the דין by a בעל חוב is that he collects from בינונית, so why shouldn't הקדש also collect from בינונית? וכי תימא, ah, you might say, סבר רבי עקיבא, that רבי עקיבא holds כל בעל חוב נמי בעידית, that every בעל חוב also collects from עידית, because there is an opinion that says that a בעל חוב collects from עידית, not from בינונית, from the best, not from the middle kind. So maybe that's what רבי עקיבא holds, and that's what he meant, קל וחומר להקדש. So just like a regular בעל חוב, when he comes to collect, he collects from the עידית, according to רבי עקיבא, so too when הקדש comes to collect the promise that this person promised to give to הקדש, he would also collect from the עידית. So the גמרא says we can't say that, because איכא למיפרך. When we want to learn out that הקדש collects from עידית, the same as a בעל חוב, we want to learn it out from the דין of בעל חוב, we could איכא למיפרך, we could schlog up, we could ask a question and disprove the ראיה, because we could say, מה לבעל חוב, you know why a בעל חוב has this חומרא that he could collect from עידית? שכן יפה כחו בנזקין, that his כח is strong, his power is strong when it comes to נזקין. A בעל חוב, an ordinary person, if he would have to collect from נזקין, if he would have to collect not a loan, but that same person would have to collect for a damage that someone caused to him, he would collect from עידית. He would collect the money, because if you damage somebody, you have to pay, so he would have collected it, Plus he would collect it from עידית. So we're able to say that you know why this בעל חוב collects from עידית when he comes to collect his loan? Because this person has a חומרא, the חומרא is that by נזקין he would have also collected, and also would have collected from עידית. תאמר בהקדש, but say בהקדש, שהורע כוחו בנזקין, that the כח of הקדש, the power of הקדש when it comes to נזקין is weakened, because, as we said before, that if somebody was מזיק הקדש, you don't pay at all. So הקדש has a קולא. הקדש in one way, לגבי collecting money, is weaker than a הדיוט, than a regular person. So how can we learn out from a הדיוט בעל חוב, from an ordinary בעל חוב, that just like he collects his loan from עידית, so, too, when הקדש comes to collect the money owed to הקדש, he'll also collect from עידית? We could say, "No, you can't learn out הקדש from הדיוט. הדיוט could collect from עידית because we see by נזקין, you also collect, and you collect from עידית, while הקדש, when it comes to נזקין, it wouldn't collect at all, that shows that when it comes to collecting money, הקדש has a קולא, הקדש is weaker. So maybe הקדש will be weaker concerning a loan also, that the money that is owed to הקדש, you do not take from עידית, but you take from בינונית." So how can רבי עקיבא learn out that הקדש collects the promise, the donation that the person promised, הקדש would collect that from the עידית, and we want to learn that out from a regular בעל חוב, when a regular בעל חוב has a חומרא over הקדש? So we cannot learn out the דין of הקדש. So now that we said that we cannot learn out the דין of הקדש, that if someone promises money to הקדש he must give the עידית, so this is not what רבי עקיבא meant, so we're back to the question: What did רבי עקיבא mean when he said, "קל וחומר להקדש, that when you have to pay הקדש, you certainly have to pay from עידית of the מזיק"? The גמרא answers, לעולם, the truth is I'll tell you that the case is, as we said before, דנגח תורא דידן לתורא דהקדש, that an ox of ours, which means an ox of an ordinary person, gored an ox of הקדש, and that's what רבי עקיבא meant, that when you have to pay for that היזק, you must pay from עידית of the מזיק. ודקא קשיא לך, איי, we asked a קשיא, שור רעהו אמר רחמנא ולא שור של הקדש, that the תורה tells us that only if you gore a שור of your friend, that's when you are obligated to pay, but if your ox gored an ox of הקדש, you are completely פטור, so how could we say that רבי עקיבא meant, when he said, "קל וחומר להקדש", it refers to this case? So we'll answer you, רבי עקיבא סבר לה כרבי שמעון בן מנסיא. רבי עקיבא holds like רבי שמעון בן מנסיא. In other words, this whole דין that we said, that if your ox gores an ox of הקדש, you are completely פטור, רבי עקיבא doesn't hold that way. רבי עקיבא holds differently. He holds like רבי שמעון בן מנסיא. What does רבי שמעון בן מנסיא hold? דתניא, because we learn in a ברייתא, רבי שמעון בן מנסיא אומר, רבי שמעון בן מנסיא says, שור של הקדש שנגח שור של הדיוט, if a שור of הקדש gored a שור, an ox of הדיוט, an ox belonging to an ordinary person, פטור, הקדש is פטור from paying. But on the other hand, if שור של הדיוט שנגח שור של הקדש, that if a שור of an ordinary person gored a שור of הקדש, so בין תם בין מועד משלם נזק שלם. So whether that ox was a תם, it was his first or second or maybe third time that he did it, which in an ordinary case, if this happened, you would only pay חצי נזק, half of the נזק, that's the דין, that a תם the תורה says only pays half of the נזק. Only after he turns into a מועד he pays נזק שלם. But if your ox gored an ox of הקדש, so whether your ox was a תם, בין מועד, or your ox was a מועד already, משלם נזק שלם, you pay the complete נזק. And as רש״י explains, that רבי שמעון בן מנסיא learns the פשט in the פסוק different than we said before. He also learns that the תורה says שור רעהו, that if your ox gored an ox of your friend, that's when the דינים of the פסוק applies, but he explains it differently. He says what the תורה means to say is that only if you gore an ox of your friend, which means an ox of an ordinary person, that's when there is a difference between תם and מועד, that a תם would have to pay חצי נזק, half of the נזק, and a מועד would pay the complete נזק, נזק שלם. But if you gored an ox of הקדש, then this דין doesn't apply, but you always pay נזק שלם. And this is the מחלוקת between רבי שמעון בן מנסיא and the חכמים, how we דרשן the דרש of שור רעהו ולא שור של הקדש. The חכמים, they דרשן שור רעהו ולא שור של הקדש that only by שור רעהו, only if your ox gores an ordinary ox, you pay for the נזק, but if it happened to הקדש, then you don't pay at all. While רבי שמעון בן מנסיא דרשנ'ס it just the opposite way, that only if your ox gored an ordinary ox, that's when if it is a תם you pay חצי נזק, you pay only half. But if it happened to an ox of הקדש, then you pay always נזק שלם, even if it was a תם. So if רבי עקיבא holds like רבי שמעון בן מנסיא, then we understand what he meant when he said קל וחומר להקדש. Since he holds that if your ox gores an ox of הקדש you do have to pay, so what he said was that if when it happens to an ordinary ox you must pay from עידית of the מזיק, so if your ox gored an ox of הקדש where you also have to pay, you certainly have to pay of עידית of the מזיק because הקדש is always stricter than הדיוט. And if by הדיוט we are that strict that you have to pay from עידית of the מזיק, we are certainly that strict if it happened to a שור of הקדש that you certainly have to pay from עידית of the מזיק. Then the גמרא asks: אי הכי, if so, that we just said that רבי עקיבא holds like רבי שמעון בן ננס that you are חייב to pay if you gored an ox of הקדש, so רבי ישמעאל ורבי עקיבא, when we explained before the מחלוקת between רבי ישמעאל and רבי עקיבא, מאי, how do we know דבעידית דניזק וזיבורית דמזיק פליגי, that their מחלוקת is in a case, as we said before, where the מזיק has זיבורית, and his זיבורית is worth as much as the עידית of the ניזק, and the מחלוקת is whether he is able to give his זיבורית being that this is the עידית of the ניזק, or must he give the עידית of himself, that is their מחלוקת, דילמא, maybe, דכולי עלמא בדניזק שמינן, maybe everyone agrees, רבי עקיבא and רבי ישמעאל, they both hold that you have to give the עידית of the ניזק. In other words, if you have זיבורית which is worth as much as the עידית of the ניזק, you could give your זיבורית, maybe they both hold that way. והכא, and here, בפלוגתא דרבי שמעון בן ננס ורבנן קמיפלגי, the מחלוקת between them is the same מחלוקת as רבי שמעון בן ננס and the רבנן. רבי עקיבא סבר, and רבי עקיבא would hold כרבי שמעון בן ננס, like רבי שמעון בן ננס, that if you damage הקדש you still must pay, ורבי ישמעאל סבר כרבנן, and רבי ישמעאל will hold like the רבנן, he will hold that when you gored an ox of הקדש you are פטור. In other words, if we look back at the ברייתא, the ברייתא did not say clearly what the מחלוקת between רבי ישמעאל and רבי עקיבא is. And that's why the גמרא before had a whole discussion till finally we came to the decision that this was their מחלוקת. Because in the ברייתא itself all it says is that רבי ישמעאל says that you have to give מיטב כרמו של ניזק, and רבי עקיבא says that the תורה only came to tell us that you have to give מן העידית, and קל וחומר להקדש, that's all he said. So before we explained that the מחלוקת was that רבי ישמעאל holds that you have to give the מיטב of the ניזק, and you don't have to give your best, and רבי עקיבא holds that you have to give the best of the מזיק. Even though in the ברייתא it doesn't say clearly that רבי עקיבא said you have to give of the מזיק, all it says is רבי עקיבא said לא בא הכתוב אלא לגבות לנזקין מן העידית, that the תורה tells us that you have to pay for נזקין from עידית, but it doesn't say it means the עידית of the מזיק. We just explained that way the מחלוקת between רבי ישמעאל and רבי עקיבא, because otherwise we wouldn't know what the מחלוקת is. But now the גמרא says, since we just said that רבי עקיבא holds like רבי שמעון בן ננס, so maybe the מחלוקת between them is not concerning whether you have to give the עידית of the ניזק or the עידית of the מזיק. Maybe the whole מחלוקת is only in the last words of רבי עקיבא, because after רבי עקיבא says לא בא הכתוב אלא לגבות לנזקין מן העידית, that the תורה only came to tell us that you pay נזקין from עידית, he adds the words וקל וחומר להקדש, that certainly the same דין applies to הקדש. So maybe this is the whole מחלוקת. They both hold that you give מיטב, the עידית of the ניזק, as רבי ישמעאל said that you have to give from the ניזק, and when רבי עקיבא came to argue, he didn't come to argue that you have to give from the מזיק, because he did not mention in his words the מזיק, he came to argue only with the words קל וחומר להקדש, that certainly the same דין applies to הקדש. In other words, רבי ישמעאל would hold that you only have to pay מן העידית when you damaged an ordinary שור, but when you damage הקדש you are פטור. And רבי עקיבא comes and says no, that קל וחומר להקדש, that certainly if you damage הקדש you certainly have to pay, and you have to pay מן העידית. Because when רבי עקיבא heard what רבי ישמעאל said, and he understood from רבי ישמעאל's words that he's only dealing with the damage done to הדיוט, so he understood from רבי ישמעאל that רבי ישמעאל holds that by הקדש you are פטור, so רבי עקיבא came to say no, that the תורה comes to tell us that you have to collect מן העידית, קל וחומר להקדש and certainly by הקדש. And that's what the גמרא asks here: How do we know that the מחלוקת between רבי עקיבא and רבי ישמעאל is whether you have to pay the עידית based on the מזיק or based on the ניזק, maybe the only מחלוקת between them is whether we say קל וחומר להקדש or not, whether when you damage הקדש do you have to pay or you don't have to pay? And the גמרא answers: אם כן, if so, this would be the only מחלוקת, מאי לא בא הכתוב, what does רבי עקיבא mean with the words לא בא הכתוב אלא לגבות לנזקין מן העידית? If this would be the only מחלוקת, רבי עקיבא should should have just said קל וחומר להקדש. After רבי ישמעאל made his statement that you have to pay the עידית of the ניזק, so רבי עקיבא should have

said קל וחומר להקדש, that certainly בהקדש. In other words, you are only saying it בהדיוט, I'm telling you that it's בהקדש also. But that's not what רבי עקיבא did. רבי עקיבא started off his argument by saying the תורה only comes to tell us that you collect for נזקין from עידית. So it comes out that this itself is part of the מחלוקת. As if he's telling to רבי ישמעאל, you said something concerning the עידית, I'm telling you that the תורה only came to tell us that you collect נזקין מן עידית. What did he mean? So therefore we say he meant that he also argues in what type of עידית you have to give. So since רבי ישמעאל said that you have to give the עידית of the ניזק, so we understand that רבי עקיבא argues and he says you have to give the עידית of the מזיק. ועוד, another ראיה that we can't say the only מחלוקת is concerning whether you have to pay for הקדש or not, but as far as what kind of עידית you have to pay normally they both hold that you pay from the ניזק. מאי קל וחומר להקדש, what did רבי עקיבא mean with the words קל וחומר להקדש, that certainly בהקדש? And the

way רש״י explains this קשיא, the פשט is as follows: now we're saying that רבי עקיבא also holds that you have to give עידית דניזק, which is a קולא לגבי if he would hold that you have to give עידית דמזיק. So the question of the גמרא is, how can we say then קל וחומר להקדש, that certainly this דין applies to הקדש? The concept of a קל וחומר is that when we find in an easier case a חומרא, so we say that certainly in the stricter case we certainly must have that חומרא. Now here רבי עקיבא is saying a קולא, not a חומרא. רבי עקיבא is saying, like רבי ישמעאל, that when you pay עידית, you don't have to pay עידית of the מזיק, it's enough if you pay עידית of the ניזק. So רבי עקיבא is telling us a קולא. So how can he continue and say that certainly this would apply to הקדש too? Certainly this קולא, so to speak, would apply to הקדש. When the truth is that since הקדש is stricter, maybe by הקדש it's different, maybe by הקדש you have to pay the עידית of the מזיק. And that's the גמרא's קשיא, how can you say קל וחומר להקדש if you're gonna say that both hold that you pay the עידית of the ניזק? ועוד, another קשיא, another ראיה that we must say that the מחלוקת between רבי ישמעאל and רבי עקיבא is also what kind of עידית you normally have to pay, because דאמר רב אשי, רב אשי said, תניא בהדיא, we learn בפירוש in a ברייתא, the ברייתא quotes the פסוק מיטב שדהו ומיטב כרמו ישלם, the best of your fields and the best of his vineyard he must pay, so the ברייתא explains it, מיטב שדהו של ניזק ומיטב כרמו של ניזק, דברי רבי ישמעאל, that רבי ישמעאל holds it means that you have to give the best of your, of his field and the best of the vineyard of the ניזק. רבי עקיבא אומר, רבי עקיבא says, מיטב שדהו של מזיק ומיטב כרמו של מזיק, that what the תורה means you give the best of the field of the מזיק and the best of the vineyard of the מזיק. So we see clearly that there is a מחלוקת between רבי ישמעאל and רבי עקיבא what kind of עידית you have to pay. And therefore we cannot say פשט in the ברייתא that we brought before that the מחלוקת is only concerning הקדש, but concerning what type of עידית you have to give they both hold you give עידית of the ניזק, when we have בפירוש a ברייתא where it says that there is a מחלוקת whether you have to give עידית דניזק or עידית דמזיק. Then the גמרא continues,

רמי ליה אביי לרבא, אביי asked a קשיא to רבא, כתיב, one פסוק it says מיטב שדהו ומיטב כרמו ישלם, that you have to pay the best of his fields and the best of his vineyard. So it comes out מיטב אין, only the best you could pay, מידי אחרינא לא, other things you can't, you have to only give the best. והתניא, but we learn in a ברייתא, the פסוק says ישיב, this is the פסוק that says בעל הבור ישלם כסף ישיב לבעליו, that if a person digs a בור a pit and causes damage, so the owner of the pit must pay money, he must return that to its owner. So the word ישיב is extra. The פסוק could have said בעל הבור ישלם כסף לבעליו, that the owner of the pit should pay כסף to its owner, to the owner of the thing he caused a damage to. Why does the פסוק add the word ישיב? So לרבות, this comes to include, to add שוה כסף, that you could pay not only money, you could pay things which are worth money. ואפילו סובין, even bran, even though this is something very cheap, but as long as you give enough that will equal the amount that you have to pay for the damage, you could even pay with סובין, with bran. So this comes out to be a contradiction, because in the פסוק before we mentioned it says מיטב, that you must give the best, and now we're saying you could give anything, even סובין. And he answered, לא קשיא, there is no קשיא. כאן מדעתו, one פסוק is if you pay willingly, on your own דעת, כאן And the other פסוק is בעל כרחו if you pay by force. If you are pulled to בית דין and בית דין forces you to pay, so since you caused the person to go through the trouble of getting you to בית דין, etcetera, so then you have to pay the best. But if you pay on your own, then you can pay anything, even סובין.

אמר עולא בריה דרבי עילאי, and עולא the son of רבי עילאי said: דייקא נמי, we could also be מדייק, we could also prove this פשט from the words of the פסוק itself. דכתיב, because it says in the פסוק, ישלם, he should pay, and that means בעל כרחו, by force. The פסוק says מיטב שדהו, מיטב כרמו ישלם, that the best of his fields he should pay, and he feels that the word he should pay means that if he is forced to pay. So here we see that the פסוק where it says that you give מיטב, is if you are forced to pay, and the פסוק where we learn out that you could give even סובין, that is if you pay willingly. אמר ליה אביי, so אביי said to him, מי כתיב ישולם, does the פסוק say ישולם, he should be paid? If the תורה would say that, then it would mean by force, he is paid. In other words, the person does not want to pay, but nevertheless, the person gets paid because they force him to pay. בפועל ישלם כתיב, in the פסוק it says מיטב שדהו ומיטב כרמו ישלם, he should pay, which is מדעתו משמע, which is משמע that he's paying on his own will and his own דעת. So how can you tell me that the פסוק where it says מיטב is speaking about בעל כרחו, if he's forced to pay, when it says ישלם, which is משמע he pays willingly? So we're back to the question, there is a contradiction. In one פסוק it says that you have to pay מיטב, the best, and in one פסוק it says that you're able to give even סובין. אלא אמר אביי, so therefore אביי answered, כדמר, the only way we could answer this contradiction is if we're going to use the same logic as my רבי used. Because רבה, who was the רבי of אביי, had explained פשט in a different ברייתא, and if we're going to use the same logic he used there, we're going to be able to answer this contradiction too. דתניא, because we learn in a ברייתא: הרי שהיו לו בתים, שדות וכרמים, if a person had houses, or fields and vineyards, ואינו מוצא למוכרם, and he can't find to sell them, מאכילין אותו מעשר עני עד מחצה, we could feed him מעשר עני up to half. The דין is that when a person doesn't own מאתיים זוז, 200 זוז, he is considered an עני, he is considered a poor man, and he is able to collect everything that is given to poor people. He could collect צדקה, he could collect מעשר עני, he could collect לקט, שכחה, פאה, all the things which are given to עניים. And here we're talking about a person who owns houses, fields, vineyards, which are worth normally מאתיים זוז, 200 זוז. If he would be able to sell them for their normal price, he wouldn't be considered an עני, and he can't collect anything. And as תוספות says, we're not talking about the house he lives in, because we don't make a person sell that house, but he has extra homes, he has extra fields, extra vineyards, which could be worth מאתיים זוז. But בפועל, it's a case where he cannot get and sell them for the price, and therefore, at this point, he is an עני. So what we say is that we only could give him the מתנות עניים, the צדקה or whatever it is, up to a hundred זוז, because we assume that even though he can't sell his property for regular price, but it will not become cheaper more than half. So if it's normally worth 200, so at least for a hundred זוז, he could sell it. So therefore, we assume that he owns a hundred זוז, so we could give him another hundred זוז, and that will make that he will have מאתיים זוז. Now, this is a very big חידוש, because normally the דין is that when a person doesn't have מאתיים זוז, he's allowed to take at one time as much as they give him. In other words, even if he has a hundred and ninety nine זוז, all he is missing to מאתיים זוז, to 200 זוז, is one זוז. So if you give him one זוז, that's it, he now has מאתיים זוז, he can't collect anymore. On the other hand, if someone will give him at the same time a thousand זוז, since it's all given together while he still doesn't have 200 זוז, then he could take all thousand. But what the ברייתא is telling us here is that this person who really owns מאתיים זוז, 200 זוז, because his field really is worth 200 זוז, so really maybe he shouldn't be able to collect at all, but since he cannot sell it for its price, so all we're able to give him is a hundred זוז worth of מתנות עניים, and we do not apply to him this דין that as long as he doesn't have מאתיים זוז, he could take even a thousand. This person could only take 100. But the גמרא is going to ask, והוי בה מר, so the רבי, which refers to רבה, thought into this and wondered: what is the reason behind this דין? היכי דמי, what is the case talking about? אי הוזל ארעא דכולי עלמא, if everyone's field, all real estate became cheap, ודידיה נמי זל בהדייהו, and his also became cheap along with them, אפילו טובא נמי לפליג ליה, we should be able to give him even more, since everyone's became cheap, so this is now the price of the real estate. So if he could sell his, let's say, for a 100, so that means that he doesn't own more than a 100 because this is the price of the fields, because everyone's became cheaper. So why can't we give him more? Why shouldn't we apply to him this דין that along as long as he doesn't have 200, we could even give him a 1,000? Because this person doesn't own 200, because this is the price now of the field. דהא זיל דכולי עלמא נמי, because everyone else is cheap, too. So this is the price. So he should be able to take even a 1,000 if you give it to him at once. אלא, you're going to tell me דאיקיר ארעא דכולי עלמא, that really everyone else's fields are expensive. They did not become cheaper. ודידיה, just his, איידי דעייל ונפיק אזוזי, since he's going in and out looking for money, זל ארעיה, so then that's why his fields, because of what he is doing, because he is trying to sell, that's why it became cheap. People know that he's desperate to sell, so they're not ready to give him the full price because they know he will have to sell it for cheaper. If that is the reason, אפילו פורתא נמי לא לפליג ליה, even a little bit we shouldn't give him, because it is his fault that the field is cheaper. So really, the field is worth its full price now because everyone else's didn't become cheaper. So it is worth 200 זוז. In other words, this person owns 200 זוז. If he owns 200 זוז, we shouldn't be able to give him anything. So why does the ברייתא say that we could give him up to a 100, up to half? אמר מר, לא, so רבא explained פשט in this ברייתא: לא צריכא, that we don't have to tell us that the ברייתא is in a case דביומי ניסן יקרא ארעא. In the days of ניסן, a field is more expensive. וביומי תשרי זול ארעא. In the days of תשרי, a field is cheaper. And the reason is, because if you buy a field in ניסן, you're still able to plow and plant and still get a crop for that year. While if you buy a field in תשרי, you'll have to wait for the next year. So you'll lose out a crop of a year, and therefore, in the month of תשרי, fields are cheaper. דכולי עלמא, everybody, נטרי עד ניסן ומזבני. They wait till ניסן to sell. If someone wants to sell his field, he'll wait till ניסן, so he'll sell it for more money. והאי, but this person, הואיל ואיצטריכא ליה זוזי, since he needs money, זבין כי דהשתא, he will have to sell with the price that it's worth now. So really, if we look at it, we could look at it from both ways. On one hand, we could say that he does own 200 זוז, because really, all he'll have to do is just wait a little bit and he'll be able to get the full price for his field, which is 200 זוז. On the other hand, since he doesn't have any money now, and he has to sell now, and now he won't get מאתיים זוז for it, 200 זוז for it, so we could look at it as if he doesn't own מאתיים זוז. So therefore we say, עד פלגא אורחא למיזל, up to half it becomes cheaper. In the lowest it could go in the month of תשרי is up to half. טפי לאו אורחא למיזל, more than that, it will not become cheaper. And therefore we say that since he'll have to sell now, and it becomes cheaper up to half, so he'll only get a 100 for it. So therefore, we could add another 100 so he will get 200. On the other hand, to say that he should be able to collect even a 1,000 because he doesn't own 200, and as we said before, as long as you don't own 200 you could collect at once even a 1,000, to him, it doesn't apply, because really, he does own 200, because his field essentially is worth 200 if he'll only wait till ניסן. So therefore we make a compromise, and we say that we could give him now, because now he will have to sell it for a 100, but we only could give him up to making him own 200, because essentially he already owns 200. So now that we see that there is such a concept of fields being worth more in the month of ניסן and less in the month of תשרי, so we could apply that same סברא to answer the contradiction between the two פסוקים that we had before. And the

גמרא says like this: והכא נמי, so here too, גבי נזקין, by the דין of נזקין, as we said, דיניה בעידית, the דין is normally that you have to give עידית, you have to give your best. And that's what we learned out from the פסוק, מיטב שדהו ומיטב כרמו ישלם, you have to give the best fields. אי, we said there's another פסוק that says, ישיב לרבות אפילו סובין, that you could give even סובין. So the פשט is like this: אי אמר ליה איהו, if the ניזק, the one that is getting paid, says to the מזיק, הב לי בינונית טפי פורתא, I'd rather take בינונית, you have to give me the best, I'll do you a favor, I'll take בינונית, I'll take the middle type of field. And the reason he wants to do it, for instance, is if the ניזק owns a field right next to the בינונית of the מזיק. So it's worth for him to take the בינונית, even though it's not such a good field. So he says to him, "I'd rather you give me בינונית and give me a little bigger piece, because for the same amount of money, if you give בינונית, you have to give more of it than if you give עידית." So let's say he says to him, "Give me בינונית, טפי פורתא, a little bit bigger." אמר ליה, so he could say to him, "אי שקלת כדינך שקיל כדהשתא. If you're going to take as your דין, which is עידית, take as it is worth now." In other words, we're talking in a case where the ניזק came to collect his money in the month of תשרי, and in the month of תשרי fields are cheaper, so in the month of תשרי he will collect a bigger piece of field for the same amount of money. But he says, "I would rather not take the עידית, I'd rather take בינונית." So he is able to answer him, "If you're going to take עידית, take on the price it's worth now, ואי לא, but if not, if you want to go different than your דין, you want me to give you בינונית, then שקול כיוקרא דלקמיה, take according to the price, the more expensive price that will be later, that will be in the month of ניסן." And that's what the פסוק meant, that it's up to the מזיק if he wants, he could give אפילו סובין, could give even bran. So according to this פשט, it doesn't mean that he could actually give him bran, it means that he it's up to him not to give him the worse thing, not to give him the worse field. As we say now, that if he wants a worse piece of property, and it's up to the מזיק to tell him, "I don't want to give it to you unless you will take it on the price it will be later." And this is the answer to the contradiction, that if you give מיטב, then you have to give right away, and you can't tell him, "I will charge you based on the price of later." You have to give it to him at the price of now, because that's the דין, you must give עידית, and since this is the price now, you must give it to him based on the price now. If he wants something worse, and that's what we mean with סובין, a worse quality of field, then it is up to the מזיק, and the מזיק could say, "If you want the בינונית, then I could give it to you based on the price of later." But one might ask, why did אביי have to go through this whole thing to answer the contradiction this way? Why could he answer it very simple? Could have said that when the פסוק says, מיטב שדהו ומיטב כרמו ישלם, you have to give עידית, that's normal circumstances. When he's ready to take עידית, you must give him עידית. And the other פסוק comes to tell us that if the ניזק wants a worse quality of field, then you have to give him that field. That's what the second פסוק says, that אפילו סובין, that you have to give him even סובין, that if the ניזק wants בינונית, you have to give him בינונית, and that would answer the contradiction very easily. So רש״י says that couldn't be, because if that what the פסוק would have meant, we wouldn't need a פסוק for that, because if the ניזק has a right to ask for עידית, certainly he has a right to ask for בינונית, and you would have to give it to him. So the פסוק wouldn't have to tell us that if he wants בינונית, then you give him בינונית. So what does the פסוק tell us? That if he wants בינונית, you have a right to tell him, "I'll give it to you based on the price of later." Concerning the

ברייתא that we brought before, הרי שהיו לו בתים שדות וכרמים ואינו מוצא למוכרן מאכילין אותו מעשר עני עד מחצה, רש״י tells us another פשט. The פשט before was that we're talking about a person who has fields which are worth exactly 200, and the problem is that he cannot sell them for the 200, and therefore he is considered an עני. And what the ברייתא said, that we could only give him a hundred זוז worth of מעשר עני or of any מתנות עניים. But then רש״י says there's another פשט, that we're talking about a person who is not an עני, and these fields, this property could be worth much more, could be worth up thousands. But the ברייתא is telling us, if there's a person that has no cash, he only has property, but if he's going to sell his property, he's going to have to lose money, because if he'll sell it now to get cash, there will be a loss, he can't sell them for its full price. And the ברייתא says that since this person can't sell his property for full price, so even though if he'll sell it, he will get much more than 200, could be his property is worth 10,000, and when he sells it, he will get 5,000 for it, we do not tell him, "Sell your property on a loss," but we say, till you're able to sell your property for its full price, in the meantime, since you don't have any cash, you are considered like an עני, like a poor person, and you are able to collect מעשר עני. But we only say that if he's able to sell it for less than half its price, then we tell him, "Do not sell it, because the loss will be too big." But if he is going to sell it and he's going to get more than half of its price, then we tell him, "Sell it and you cannot collect מעשר עני." And that's what the גמרא asked. The גמרא's קשיא was, what is it talking about? If everyone else's became cheaper and so did his, then the question is, even if he could sell it for more than half, he should also be able to collect, because really it's not his fault that he's going to have a loss. So since it's It's not his fault for the loss, so why should we make him take the loss? So the גמרא's קשיא is, why did we say that if he's able to sell it for more than half

its value, he can't collect מעשר עני? He should collect מעשר עני as long as he can't sell it for its full price. Because the reason he's going to have a loss is not his fault. On the other hand, if we're going to say that everyone else's is worth full price, his is worth less because he is looking for money, so it's his fault that he is going to have a loss, so the דין should be, the גמרא asks, that even if he is able to sell it for less than its half price, he also shouldn't be able to collect. Because essentially his property is not worth less. His property is worth its full price. The reason he will not get its full price is because of his own fault. So why should we give him מעשר עני when it's his own fault that he is going to have a loss? So the דין should be he should sell his property for whatever price he will get, and since when he will get it, he will definitely have more than מאתים זוז, he will use that for his food. Why is the דין that if he sells it for less than half its value, he is able to collect מעשר עני and we tell him to not take a loss? And the גמרא answered that we are talking in a case where it is worth its full price, the

only thing is it's in the month of תשרי, when everyone else's is worth less, but if he's going to wait a little bit till the month of ניסן, he will get its full price, but he can't. So therefore we say, if he's able to sell it up to half its price, so we tell him sell it, and you cannot collect מעשר עני. Because this is really the common thing, this is the value of your property now. So sell it for that price, even though there will be a loss, but this is the value of your property. And if he'll sell it, he'll get more than 200, because even half its price is worth more than 200, and therefore he cannot collect מעשר עני. If he's going to have to take a loss more than half, so that is not a normal thing, because that is not a דרך for it to go down that much, so then we tell him, do not sell it, and you could collect מעשר עני till you're able to get half its price. And then the גמרא used the same concept to answer the contradiction between the two פסוקים, that the פסוק מיטב, as we said before, refers to the general דין that you must give עידית, and the פסוק ישיב לרבות שוה כסף comes to tell us, as we learned according to the other פשט, that if he wants בינונית, then the מזיק is able to tell him that if you take בינונית, not like your דין is, I could charge you based on the price that it'll be worth in the month of ניסן. Then the גמרא says, מתיב רב אחא בר יעקב. רב אחא בר יעקב

asked a קשיא, אם כן, if you're going to say that פשט, that if he wants בינונית in the month of תשרי, he could tell him, "I will give it to you based on the price of ניסן," which means you will get a smaller piece, because in the month of ניסן it's going to be worth more, אם כן הורעת כוחן של ניזקין אצל בינונית וזיבורית, that means that you weakened the power of a ניזק concerning בינונית and זיבורית. דרחמנא אמר, the תורה says, ממיטב, that you have to give him even from the best, ואת אמרת, and you're saying, מבינונית וזיבורית נמי לא, that even from בינונית and זיבורית you can't give him. Because as you said, that if he wants בינונית, and the same thing would be if he wants זיבורית, you're able to charge him more. So you're weakening his כח concerning collecting בינונית and זיבורית, but it should be just the opposite. When the תורה said that a ניזקין collects from עידית, it means even from עידית. Certainly he could collect from בינונית and זיבורית. And what you're saying is that if he wants to collect from בינונית or זיבורית, you could charge him more for it. אלא אמר רב אחא בר יעקב, so רב אחא בר יעקב said, אי איכא למימר, if you do want to compare רבה's case, this idea of fields being worth more in ניסן than in תשרי, if you want to use that concept concerning a certain דין, you can't use it concerning ניזקין as we said before, because you would be spoiling their כח in בינונית and זיבורית. You could use it, you could compare it לבעל חוב, to a case of a בעל חוב. מדמינן לה, to that you could compare it. What does it mean? בעל חוב דיניה בבינונית. The דין by a בעל חוב is, as we said before, that he collects from the middle kinds of fields, the בינונית. ואי אמר ליה, if he says to him, הבו לי זיבורית טפי פורתא, "Give me a little bit more, but of זיבורית. I'd rather take זיבורית than בינונית." So in this case, אמר ליה, the borrower could say to him, אי שקלת כי דינך שקול כדהשתא. If you'll take as your דין, you will take the בינונית, then I have to give it to you based on the price it's worth now. In other words, they're talking in the month of תשרי, when fields are cheaper. So he says to him, "If you will take according to your דין בינונית, take it based on the price of now. ואי לא, if not, if you want to take זיבורית, שקול כי יוקרא דלקמי. Take it based on the price, the more expensive price of later. Since I don't have to give you the זיבורית, I should give you really בינונית, you want זיבורית, I could give it to you based on the more expensive price of later. And here, תוספות says, the גמרא couldn't ask that we're spoiling the כח of a בעל חוב, על פי דין he should get בינונית, so certainly he could get זיבורית. So how could we tell him that we do not want to give him זיבורית of the price of now? So תוספות says such a קשיא we couldn't ask, because a בעל חוב doesn't really have a strong כח, because his whole דין that a בעל חוב gets בינונית is only מדרבנן. מדאורייתא he should really get זיבורית. By ניזקין, the דין that he gets עידית is a דין from the תורה. Says, "מיטב שדהו ומיטב כרמו." So there is a special כח the תורה gave him. So the גמרא had a good קשיא before, that if the תורה gave him the כח by עידית, certainly he has the כח to collect from בינונית and זיבורית. But by a בעל חוב, the גמרא couldn't ask that if he has a כח for בינונית, certainly he has a כח for זיבורית, because he really doesn't have a כח for בינונית. It's only a דין דרבנן that he collects from בינונית, and therefore the גמרא couldn't ask such a קשיא. But מתקיף לה רב אחא בריה דרב איקא, but רב אחא בריה דרב איקא asked a different קשיא: אם כן, if so, נעלת דלת בפני לוין, you will close the door for borrowers. People won't be able to borrow. דאמר ליה, he will tell him, אילו הוו לי זוזי, הוו שקילנא כי דהשתא. If I would have money now, I would've been able to take the זיבורית as it's worth now. In other words, if I wouldn't lend you the money, I would have money now. If I would have money now, I could buy any field. So I could buy זיבורית now based on the price it's worth now. השתא דזוזי גבך, now that my money is by you because I lend you money, אשקול, I have to take, כיוקרא דלקמיא? Now that I want to take זיבורית, you'll give it to me based on the expensive price of later? So if a person will know that if he wants to collect זיבורית, he'll have to lose out on the deal, people won't lend any money, because by lending money, they lose, as we just said. If he would not have lent him the money, he would've been able to buy the same זיבורית for a cheaper price. So by making this דין, people will not want to lend money, so we're going to close the doors for people to borrow money. אלא אמר רב אחא בריה דרב איקא, so therefore, רב אחא the son of רב איקא said, אי איכא למימר, if you do want to use that logic of רבא, the case of רבא, of a field being more expensive in ניסן and less expensive in תשרי, if you do want to use that, you could compare it לכתובת אשה מדמינן. You could compare it, you could use it, for the case of a כתובה, because דכתובת אשה דינה בזיבורית, because the דין of a כתובה is זיבורית. When a woman comes to collect her כתובה, she gets only זיבורית. ואי אמרה ליה איהי, so if she says to him, הבו לי בינונית ובציר פורתא, give me a better kind of field, a little bit less, but I'd rather have בינונית, a little bit less, than זיבורית, a little bit more, and על פי דין, she can't collect from the בינונית, so it's really up to him whether he wants to give it to her or not, so here, אמר לה, he could say to her, אי שקלת כדינך, שקול כי דהשתא, if you want to take as your דין, which is זיבורית, take on the price of now, ואי לא, if not, if you want to take a better quality field, שקול, take, כיוקרא דלקמיא, based on the more expensive price of later, since I do not have to give it to you, you have no right to ask for that field. So if I do want to give it to you, I'm able to charge you based on the more expensive price of later. And as תוספות says, the גמרא really could have said the same thing concerning a בעל חוב, that if a בעל חוב, who's supposed to take from בינונית, says, "I'd rather take from עידית," so he's able to tell him, "Since I don't have to give you עידית, if you want, take it based on the more expensive price of later." But since the גמרא started off with the ניזקין, which collects עידית, and then we went to the case of בעל חוב that collects בינונית, and we asked a question on that, so we continue and we bring the case of a כתובה, which is זיבורית. But the idea is the same: that as long as you want to collect with a better quality field than you're supposed to get, the one that's giving it to you is able to give it to you based on the more expensive price of later. But after all this, it comes out that the question is still not answered. We tried to answer the contradiction between the two פסוקים by using the idea of רבא concerning the fields that are worth more in the month of ניסן and less in the month of תשרי, but the גמרא said that couldn't be, because we would be spoiling the power of ניזקין concerning בינונית and זיבורית, and therefore the גמרא said that we can't accept that תירוץ, just that in the meantime, the גמרא said that where can we use the idea of רבא? Concerning, first we thought a בעל חוב, and then we came to the decision that it could be used for כתובה. But as far as the question is concerned, the question is not answered. That's what the גמרא asks now: מכל מקום קשיא, but still, we have the קשיא, what is the answer to that contradiction, that in one פסוק it says that you have to give מיטב, and the other פסוק says that you could give even סובין?

אמר רבא, so רבא said, the פשט is like כל דיהיב ליה ממיטב basically. Anything that you give, you have to give the best. In other words, if you give a field, you have to give the best field. If you give סובין, you have to give the best סובין. You could give whatever you want. You could give or a field or שוה כסף, things which are worth money, even סובין you could give, but whatever you give, you have to give מיטב. That's what the פסוק מיטב means. But the גמרא asks, והא מיטב שדהו כתיב, doesn't it say that you give the best of your field? So how can you say that whatever you give you give the best, when the תורה only says you give the best of the field? If the תורה would mean that whatever you give you give the best, the תורה should have said מיטב and not mention the word שדהו, and we would know that you have to give the best. אלא, so the real תירץ would be כי אתא רב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע מבי רב, when רב פפא and רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע came from רב, פירשוה, they explained it. They answered the question and they said that כל מילי מיטב הוא, everything is called מיטב. Everything but a field, whatever מטלטלין you give, is always considered מיטב, is always considered good, because דאי לא מזדבן הכא, if you can't sell it here, מזדבן במתא אחריתי, you can sell it in a different city. So every object, even סובין, is considered מיטב. לבר מארעא, except a field, דלית בה ממיטב, by a field you must give the best and you cannot give a bad field, כי היכי דליקפצו עלה זביני, in order that customers should jump on it. By a field, you can't say that every field is good, because a field if it's not a good field and you can't sell it here, you can't take it with you someplace else and say, "I'll find a customer someplace else." And therefore, by a field you must give the best, but other objects, whatever you give is considered the best. And that answers the contradiction: The פסוק טאקע says that by a field you must give the best, and nevertheless you could give if you want any other object, including סובין, because every other object is equal to the best of the field, because if you can't sell it here, you could sell it in another place. It is important to know that concerning the ברייתא that we learned before of the person who has property and he can't find to sell them for its real price, and therefore there's a question whether he could collect מעשר עני or not, and we mentioned two פשטים of רש״י, תוספות brings a few more פשטים, and we will mention one more of the פשטים that תוספות says, and that is the פשט of the רי״ף. The רי״ף has a different גירסא here in the גמרא than we have. Generally speaking, the פשט of the רי״ף is similar to the second פשט of רש״י, but just the גמרא's קשיא according to the רי״ף will be different than the way רש״י learns. According to the רי״ף, the פשט here too is that a person has many, many fields which altogether are worth much more than 200. The only thing is he can't sell them for its full price and he doesn't have any cash now to buy food for. And what the ברייתא says is, as according to the second פשט of רש״י, that if he's able to sell them up to half of the worth, then we say that you cannot collect מעשר עני. If he's able to sell them for less than half of its worth, then we say he could collect מעשר עני. But the גמרא's קשיא will be different than the way רש״י explained. The way we have the גירסא in our גמרא, the way רש״י learns, the גמרא's קשיא was that if everyone else's is cheap too, then the גמרא says that even if he could sell it for more than half, we still should give him, because it's not his fault that he can't get its full price. So then, we don't want him to lose any money. So as long as he cannot sell it for its full price, the גמרא feels he should get מעשר עני. Why should he lose even one dollar? On the other hand, if everyone else's didn't become cheaper and only his is cheaper because people see he's desperate for money, so they know they're going to be able to get it for less than its price, and therefore they don't want to give him the full price. If so, the גמרא asks, even if he's able to sell it for less than half of its price, he still shouldn't collect, because it's his fault that he's not able to get its full price, and therefore why should we give him מעשר עני when he himself is the reason why he can't sell it? And when he will sell it for less than half of its price, it will be worth 200, because it's worth much, much more. So the גמרא's קשיא is we shouldn't give him even if he's able to sell it for less than half of its price. But the רי״ף learns that the קשיא in the גמרא is just the opposite. The גמרא's קשיא is like this: If everyone else's is also cheap and so is his, then why should he collect מעשר עני even if he could sell it for less than half? Because if everyone else's is cheap too, then this is the price of the property now. So it's not called a loss; this is how much it's worth. And since it's worth more than 200, so we say let him sell it for whatever he will get, even though it is less than half than what he could have gotten a time before, but now this is the price. So let him sell it for whatever he will get. And since when he sells it, he will get more than 200, he shouldn't be able to collect even if it's half than its original price. And the other hand the גמרא asks, if everyone else's didn't go down, it's only his that went down because he is looking for money, here the גמרא feels that even if he could get more than half of its price, he still should be able to collect. Because really the property is worth its full price, as we see that others are still worth the full price. So just because he is looking for money, that's why we should make him lose? So therefore the גמרא feels that even if he could sell it for more than half, he still shouldn't have to sell it, and we should give him מעשר עני. Which this logic is complete opposite the way the logic is according to רש״י's פשט. But the תירוץ of the גמרא is the same according to all פשטים. Another thing which is כדאי to mention is a קשיא that תוספות has. The גמרא says that a case is that the fields are worth more in ניסן and less in תשרי. So תוספות asks that concerning fields, רש״י gives a good explanation, because in the month of ניסן, if you buy a field then you're still able to get the crop from that year, while if you buy it in the month of תשרי, you will lose the crop of that year, and therefore it is cheaper in the month of תשרי than in the month of ניסן. But in the ברייתא, we have a few things mentioned. It says בתים שדות וכרמים, houses and fields and vineyards. What would be the reason concerning houses that in the month of ניסן it should be worth more than in the month of תשרי? And תוספות answers that people rent homes during the month of ניסן, so it is the season for people to rent. And it's self-understood that when you sell a house during the season when it's easier to rent it, it is more expensive than when you sell it in a time when you will not be able to rent it. And therefore even concerning בתים, concerning houses, we could say that in the month of ניסן it is more expensive than during the month of תשרי.