Objection: This is like a debt. Debts are collected from Beinonis!

Suggestion: Perhaps R. Akiva holds that debts are collected from Idis.

Rejection: A (human) creditor is paid when his ox is gored. We cannot learn to Hekdesh, which is not paid when its ox is gored!

Answer #2: Really, a man's ox gored a Hekdesh ox. Akiva expounds "the ox of his fellowman" like R. Shimon ben Menasya;

(Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Menasya): If a Hekdesh ox gores a man's ox, Hekdesh does not pay;

If a man's ox (whether Tam or Mu'ad) gores a Hekdesh ox, he pays full damage. (Half-damage applies only to "the ox of his fellowman.")

Question: If so, what is the source that R. Yishmael and R. Akiva argue when the damager's Ziburis is like the victim's Idis?

Perhaps they agree that one pays like the Idis of the victim. They argue only about R. Shimon ben Menasya's law!

Answer #1: If so, R. Akiva should not say 'the verse comes only' (since he agrees about damages)!

Answer #2: If so, the Kal va'Chomer to Hekdesh is inaccurate (for Hekdesh's Idis is surely better than the damager's)!

Answer #3 (Rav Ashi - Beraisa - R. Yishmael): "From the best of his field and vineyard he will pay" - from land equal to the best land of the victim;

R. Akiva says, from the best land of the damager.

Question (Abaye): "From the best of his field and vineyard he will pay" teaches that only Idis may be paid;

Contradiction (Beraisa #1): "He will return" teaches that Shavah Kesef (something worth money) may be given, even bran.

Answer #1 (Rava): If the damager pays willingly, and does not force the victim to take him to Beis Din, he may pay even bran. If the damager was unwilling to pay, and the victim had to get Beis Din to force him to pay, he pays only money.

Support (Ula brei d'Rav Ilai): "He will pay" - against the will of the damager.

Rejection (Abaye): It doesn't say "he will be forced to pay", but rather "he will pay", which just as easily implies that he agrees to pay on his own!

Answer #2 (Abaye): The resolution is like Rabah taught:

(Beraisa #2): (One who has 200 Zuz is considered rich, and cannot take gifts for the poor.) If Reuven has houses, fields and vineyards (worth 200 Zuz), but cannot sell them, he may take Ma'aser Oni, up to half (100 Zuz).

Question (Rabah): What is the case?

If the value of everyone's land declined, Reuven may receive even more (he is like any poor person, who may receive at once a gift of any size)!

Answer #1: Other people's land did not decline. Reuven's land declined, because people know that he must sell.

Rejection: If so, he may not receive any (Rif's text - he may receive even more) gifts of the poor!

Answer #2 (Rabah): Rather, (in Reuven's area), land is worth more in Nisan, and less in Tishrei.

Everyone else waits until Nisan to sell. Reuven cannot wait, and he must sell now.

The seasonal cheapening of land is never worse than half the value. (Land worth 200 in Nisan is worth at least 100 in Tishrei.)

(Culmination of Abaye's answer): The same applies to damages. They should be paid with Idis, at the current price;

If the victim demands a larger quantity of Beinonis (Beraisa #2 calls this Shavah Kesef), the damager can stipulate that he receive it at the higher price of Nisan.

Objection (R. Acha bar Yakov): If so, the victim has the lower hand if he wants to collect Beinonis or Ziburis!

The Torah entitled him to Idis. You cannot say that he has no right to demand Beinonis or Ziburis (without suffering a loss)!

(R. Acha bar Yakov): The proper comparison to Rabah's law is regarding a creditor (to whom the Torah did not give the greatest privileges of collection)

A loan should be paid from Beinonis (at the current price);

If the creditor requests a larger quantity of Ziburis, the borrower can stipulate that he receive it at the higher price of Nisan.

Objection (R. Acha brei d'Rav Ika): If that is the law, people will refrain from lending!

Creditors will complain 'had I not lent my money, I could have bought land at today's cheap price. Because I lent my money, must I now receive land at the higher price of Nisan?!'

(R. Acha brei d'Rav Ika): The proper comparison to Rabah's law is regarding a Kesuvah.

A Kesuvah should be paid from Ziburis;

If she requests a smaller quantity of Beinonis, the husband (or orphans) can stipulate that she receive it at the higher price of Nisan.

Question: The contradiction has not been resolved! ("From the best of his field" connotes only Idis. A Beraisa learned from "he will return" that one may give Shavah Kesef.)

Answer #3 (Rava): Whatever the damager gives (land or any kind of Metaltelim) must be Meitav (highest quality).

Objection: It says "from the best of his field"! (He need not give Meitav from Metaltelim.)

Answer #4 (Rav Papa): All Metaltelim are considered Meitav. If they can't be sold here, they can be sold elsewhere;

Land cannot be sold elsewhere. Therefore, one who pays with land must give Idis, so it will be easy to sell.

Question (Rav Shmuel bar Aba of Akronya): Does the determination of what is considered Idis depend on this person's property, or the world standard?

According to R. Yishmael, one pays the Idis of the victim. Clearly, it depends on his property.

The question is according to R. Akiva:

Does "the best of his (the damager's) field" exclude the Idis of the victim (but it suffices to give Idis of the world standard)?

Or, does "the best of his field" teach that he must give his own best?

Answer (R. Aba): "From the best of his field" clearly means his own best!