Rejection: No, it is even like R. Meir. The same applies to one who is Ma'arich a Nochri;

Explanation #1: The Mishnah discusses Ha'arachah of a Yisrael to (implicitly) teach Rav Yehudah's law;

(Rav Yehudah): One may not say "how beautiful is this Nochri!"

Question: If it is like R. Meir, the Mishnah should discuss one who is Ma'arich the nicest Yisrael or the worst Nochri!

Answer: The Mishnah discusses Erchin only of one nation.

Question: The (continuation of our) Mishnah discusses "two nations," i.e. (Ones or Mefateh of) the most prestigious Bas Kohen or the lowliest Bas Yisrael!

Answer: They are the same nation, just Kohanim have more Kedushah.

Explanation #2: Since the Seifa discusses (fixed price redemption of) Sedeh Achuzah, which applies only to Yisrael, since Nochrim do not inherit (land in Eretz Yisrael), also the Reisha discusses Yisrael.

(Mishnah): There are leniencies and stringencies of Sedeh Achuzah:

Whether one was Makdish Cholas ha'Mechuz (land outside the city - it produces little, for people trample on it, or because of Ayin ha'Ra; Shitah Mekubetzes - sandy land), or the nicest orchard, he redeems it for 50 Shekalim per Beis Kor (an area in which a Kor of barley is sown, 2500 square Amos).

If he was Makdish a Sedeh Miknah (a purchased field), he redeems it for its value.

R. Eliezer says, the fixed redemption applies also to a Sedeh Miknah.

Question: (According to R. Eliezer,) what is the difference between a Sedeh Achuzah and a Sedeh Miknah?

Answer: One who redeems his Sedeh Achuzah adds a Chomesh (a quarter of the principal). One who redeems his Sedeh Miknah does not.

(Gemara - Rav Huna): If one was Makdish a field full of trees, he redeems the trees for their value, and also pays 50 Shekalim (per Beis Kor) for the field.

Inference: Rav Huna holds that one is Makdish b'Ayin Yafeh (generously).

Question (Rav Nachman - Mishnah): Whether one was Makdish land just outside the city, or the nicest orchard, he redeems it for 50 Shekalim. (He does not pay extra for the trees!)

Answer (Rav Huna): The Mishnah discusses Hekdesh of land proper for an orchard (but there are no trees there now).

Question (Beraisa): "Beis Zera" teaches about a field in which one plants seeds;

Question: What is the source to include a vineyard, a field of reeds or a tree field?

Answer: "Sadeh" is any field.

Answer (Rav Huna): Indeed, the verse teaches that he pays 50 Shekalim for the land, but he must also redeem the trees for their value.

Question (Beraisa): If one was Makdish three trees spaced out like 10 trees spread over a Beis Kor, he includes the land and trees between them. He redeems them for 50 Shekalim.

If they are spread out more or less densely, or if he did not Makdish all three at once, he did not Makdish the land and trees between them (he redeems the Hekdesh trees for their value);

Even if he later was Makdish the land, he redeems the trees according to their value, and the land for 50 Shekalim. (In the Reisha, he pays 50 Shekalim in all. This refutes Rav Huna!)

Suggestion: Also in the Reisha, he pays 50 Shekalim, and he must redeem also the trees for their value.

Rejection: Since the Seifa says that he must do so, this implies that in the Reisha he need not!

Answer: The Beraisa is R. Shimon, who says that one is Makdish b'Ayin Ra'ah (stingily):

(Mishnah): If one makes a field Hekdesh, everything inside becomes Hekdesh;

R. Shimon says only grafted carob and sycamore stumps become Hekdesh. (They nurture greatly from the ground, which is Hekdesh.)

Question: The Seifa is not like R. Shimon!

(Seifa): Even if he later was Makdish the land, he redeems the trees according to their value, and the land for 50 Shekalim.

We know that R. Shimon follows the time of redemption. Since both are Hekdesh then, the trees should be redeemed Agav (along with) the field!

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah and R. Shimon): If one bought a field from his father, and was Makdish it; and his father died, it is now considered a Sedeh Achuzah. (Its redemption is fixed, i.e. 50 Shekalim per Beis Kor);

"Asher Lo mi'Sedeh Achuzaso" teaches that a Sedeh Miknah (a purchased field, which is redeemed for its value) is only a field that he could not have inherited. (He would have inherited this field had he not bought it!)

R. Meir says, if one bought a field from his father and was Makdish it after his father died, it is considered a Sedeh Achuzah;

"Asher Lo mi'Sedeh Achuzaso" refers to a field that was not inherited when he was Makdish it (but he inherited permanent rights to this field. His purchase was only until Yovel). (end of Beraisa)

R. Yehudah and R. Shimon hold that even if it was Hukdash before the father died, it is called a Sedeh Achuzah.

Question: What is their reason?

Suggestion: They learn from the verse.

Rejection: The verse teaches R. Meir's case!

Summation of question - Answer #1: They follow the time of redemption (when he already inherited it).

Answer (and Answer #2 to Question (6) - Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): No, they expound something else in the verse;

It could have said "Sedeh Miknaso Asher Lo Achuzaso." Rather, it says "mi'Sedeh" (an exclusion), i.e. only a field that could not become his inheritance.

(Rav Papa): If one was Makdish Tarshin (rocky land), he redeems it for its value.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: Regarding fixed redemption it says "Beis Zera." Tarshin is not fitting to be sown.

If he did not redeem it before Yovel, it is given to Kohanim.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: Regarding this law it says "Sadeh", i.e. any field.

If one sold Tarshin, he may redeem it even before two years.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: The verse that requires waiting two years says "Mispar Shnei Tevu'os." Tarshin yields no produce.

If he did not redeem it before Yovel, it returns to him.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: Regarding this law it says "v'Shav la'Achuzaso." Also this is an inheritance.

(Rav Papa): If one was Makdish trees, he redeems them for their value.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: It says "Beis Zera", which excludes trees.

If he did not redeem them before Yovel, they are not given to Kohanim.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: It says "v'Hayah ha'Sadeh", to exclude trees.

If one sold trees, he may not redeem them before two years.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: It says "Shnei Tevu'os." Also trees yield produce.

If he did not redeem them before Yovel, they do not return to him.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: It says "v'Shav la'Achuzaso." Trees are not an inheritance.

(Rav Papa): If one was Makdish trees, he redeems them for their value.

Question: The land (underneath them) should become Hekdesh Agav (with) them. They should be redeemed Agav the land!

Suggestion: Perhaps he was Makdish the trees, but not the land.

Objection: Chachamim of Neharda'a taught that one who sells a date tree includes the land from the bottom of the tree down to the depths!

Answer: Indeed he was Makdish only the trees. The land is included only when the buyer claims that the seller explicitly stipulated.

(Mishnah): If he was Makdish a Sedeh Miknah, he redeems it for its value.

(Beraisa) Question: What do we learn from "Michsas" (the calculation of the redemption of a Sedeh Miknah)?

Answer: (A Sedeh Achuzah the size of) "Zera Chomer Se'orim" is redeemed for 50 Shekalim. One might have thought that the same applies to Sedeh Miknah. "Michsas" teaches that this is not so.

R. Eliezer says, it says "v'Chishav" regarding Sedeh Miknah and regarding Sedeh Achuzah. Just like the latter has a fixed redemption, also the former.

Question: Do Chachamim agree that there is a Gezeirah Shavah, just they use it to teach about Chomesh? (I.e. one must add a Chomesh when redeeming Sedeh Miknah, just like for Sedeh Achuzah.) Or, do they say that there is no Gezeirah Shavah?

Answer (Rava): Presumably, they say that there is no Gezeirah Shavah;

Twice, the Torah teaches to add a Chomesh, regarding Sedeh Achuzah and one who is Makdish his house. These are Shnei Kesuvim (two verses, one of which teaches something which could have been learned from the other), so they do not teach about other laws. (Tosfos - they do not teach even through Gezeirah Shavah. According to the opinion (that Tosfos cites) that Shnei Kesuvim can teach through Gezeirah Shavah, Rava could mean that it is unreasonable to say that there is a Gezeirah Shavah, for if so (Chomesh applies to every Hekdesh, and) there was no need to write Chomesh in two places. It could have written it once, and we would have learned to all Hekdesh!)

Since the Torah teaches Chomesh also regarding Ma'aser Sheni and Hekdesh of Tahor and Tamei animals, the same reasoning applies to the opinion that we learn from Shnei Kesuvim. He agrees that we do not learn from three (or more) Kesuvim.

A Beraisa supports Rava's law (that Chomesh does not apply to Sedeh Miknah), but for a different reason;

(Beraisa): "Michsas ha'Erkecha" equates redemption of Sedeh Miknah to Erchin;

Just like we do not add Chomesh to Erchin, we do not add to redemption of a Sedeh Miknah.

(Mishnah): There are leniencies and stringencies of Shor ha'Mu'ad:

Whether it killed the nicest (most valuable) slave or the worst, the owner pays 30 Shekalim;

If it killed a Yisrael, the owner pays the victim's value.

If it damaged a slave or Yisrael, the owner pays full damage.

(Gemara) Inference: All these laws apply only to a Mu'ad, but not to a Tam (an animal not established to gore).

Suggestion: Our Mishnah is unlike R. Akiva, who says that if a Tam damaged a Yisrael, its owner pays full damage in excess of what the Yisrael damaged the animal.

Rejection: Our Mishnah is even like R. Akiva. The Seifa applies even to a Tam;

Since the other clauses apply only to a Mu'ad, the Tana (did not specify otherwise in the Seifa, i.e. he) taught the Seifa only about a Mu'ad.

(Mishnah): There are leniencies and stringencies of Ones and Mefateh (rape or enticement of a virgin):

Whether he raped (or enticed) the most dignified Bas Kohen, or the lowliest Bas Yisrael, he pays 50 Shekalim;

The (compensation for) Boshes (embarrassment) and Pegam (loss of virginity) is according to the girl and the rapist. (Boshes is greatest if she is prestigious and he is lowly (Rashi Kesuvos 40a - if he is average). Pegam is greater for a more prestigious (Tosfos Kesuvos 40b; Rambam - prettier) girl.)

(Gemara) Question: The Torah says only that he pays 50. What is the source to pay Boshes and Pegam?

Answer #1 (R. Ze'ira): (The Torah would not say that he pays only 50, for then) people would (justifiably) protest, does one pay the same for the king's daughter like for a commoners' daughter?!

Objection (Abaye): (If a Shor ha'Mu'ad kills any slave, the bull's owner pays 30.) We are not concerned lest people protest 'does one pay 30 for a slave skilled to pierce pearls (to thread them on a string, which is very lucrative) like for one who only sews?!