R. Yishmael holds that we assess (what is called Idis) according to the victim's land. R. Akiva says that it is according to the damager's land.

Question: What is R. Yishmael's reason?

Answer: It says "field" later (in the Parshah), and also earlier;

Just like the first time it refers to the victim's field (being consumed), also the latter time (the payments will be like the Idis of that field).

R. Akiva expounds "from the best of his field he will pay" - the field of the one paying.

R. Yishmael learns from a Gezeirah Shavah and from this verse.

He learns from the above Gezeirah Shavah (Sadeh-Sadeh).

The verse also teaches that if the damager has Idis and Ziburis, and his Ziburis is not as good like the Idis of the victim, he must pay with his Idis (even if it is better than the Idis of the victim).

(Beraisa - R. Akiva): The verse teaches only that damages are collected from Idis, all the more so regarding Hekdesh.

Question: When does the Kal va'Chomer to Hekdesh apply?

Suggestion: A man's ox gored an ox of Hekdesh.

Rejection: One pays when his ox gores "the ox of his fellow man", not an ox of Hekdesh!

Answer #1: Rather, a man said 'it is upon me to give a Maneh to Hekdesh.' The Gizbar (treasurer of Hekdesh) collects from the man's Idis.

Objection: If so, the Gizbar is like a creditor, who collects Beinonis!

Suggestion: Perhaps R. Akiva holds that a creditor collects Idis, like damages.

Rejection: (Even if this were true,) we could not learn from a creditor to Hekdesh. A creditor collects from Idis, for he is stronger: he collects damages. Hekdesh should not collect from Idis, for it does not collect damages!

Answer #2: Really, a man's ox gored an ox of Hekdesh. R. Akiva holds like R. Shimon ben Menasiya.

(Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Menasiya): If a Hekdesh ox gored a Yisrael's ox, Hekdesh does not pay;

If a Yisrael's ox, even if it is Tam (it is not established to gore), gored a Hekdesh ox, it pays full damage.

Question: If so, why must we say that R. Akiva argues with R. Yishmael when the Idis of the victim is like the Ziburis of the damager?

Perhaps all agree that payments are like the Idis of the victim. They argue only about damages to Hekdesh! R. Akiva holds like R. Shimon ben Menasiya, and R. Yishmael holds like Chachamim.

Answer #1: (This cannot be, for) if so, why did R. Akiva say 'the verse teaches only'? (This implies that he argues about how to explain the verse of damages!)

Objection #2: If so, what is the Kal va'Chomer to Hekdesh? (Rashi - if also R. Akiva is lenient about damages, that one need not pay better than the victim's Idis, we cannot learn to be stringent about Hekdesh! Tosfos - why does R. Akiva try to convince R. Yishmael that one pays Idis to Hekdesh? R. Yishmael totally exempts one whose cow damaged Hekdesh! R. Shlomo - we can never know that Hekdesh has no land better than the damager's Idis, so in any case the damager must give his own Idis!)

Objection #3 (Beraisa - R. Yishmael): "From the best of his field and vineyard he will pay" refers to the best field and vineyard of the victim;

R. Akiva says "from the best of his field and vineyard" - of the damager.

Answer #2 (to question 3:g, 48b - Ravina): Really, the Mishnah is like R. Akiva, who says that we assess Idis based on the damager's land. The Mishnah is also like R. Shimon, who derives laws based on the reasons for Mitzvos;

The reason the Torah said that damages are collected from Idis is for Tikun ha'Olam.

(Beraisa - R. Shimon): Damages are collected from Idis due to robbers and extortionists;

Such people will be discouraged from stealing when they realize that Beis Din may later take their best property for payment.

Chachamim based the law on "from the best of his field and the best of his vineyard he will pay."

(Continuation of Beraisa): Creditors collect from (only) Beinonis in order that one who covets his friend's choice property will not lend to him, intending to collect the property.

Question: If so, Chachamim should have enacted that they collect from Ziburis!

Answer: If so, borrowers would not find people to lend to them.

R. Yehudah says, a Kesuvah is collected from Ziburis;

R. Meir says, it is collected from Beinonis.

R. Shimon says, the Kesuvah is collected from Ziburis, for a woman wants to marry more than a man does;

Also, a woman is divorced willingly or unwillingly, but a man divorces only willingly.

Question: What does this mean?

Answer: One might have thought that just like Chachamim enacted that she receives a Kesuvah when he divorces her, they should enacted a Kesuvah for him when she (vexed him, and) forced the divorce. R. Shimon teaches that a man is never forced to divorce. He can delay giving a Get.

(Mishnah): A Kesuvah is collected from Ziburis.

(Mar Zutra brei d'Rav Nachman): This applies only when she collects from orphans. A divorcee collects from her ex-husband from Beinonis.

Question: Anyone who collects from orphans collects Ziburis. Why did the Mishnah specify a Kesuvah?

(Mishnah): One who collects land from orphans receives Ziburis.

Suggestion: The Mishnah says that a Kesuvah is collected from Ziburis even when she collects from her ex-husband.

Answer: Really, it teaches that she collects from orphans from Ziburis;

One might have thought that we let her collect better land to encourage marriage. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.

Question (Rava - Mishnah): R. Meir says, she collects from Beinonis.

Question: From whom does she collect Beinonis?

Suggestion: It is from orphans.

Rejection: Surely, R. Meir agrees that one who collects land from orphans receives Ziburis!

Answer: Rather, it is from her ex-husband.

This shows that Chachamim who argue with R. Meir say that she gets Ziburis from him.

Answer: Really, she collects Beinonis from orphans, to encourage marriage.

Question (Abaye - Beraisa): Damages are collected from Idis. A creditor collects from Beinonis. A Kesuvah is collected from Ziburis.

Question: From whom are these collected?

Suggestion: They are from the orphans.

Rejection: If so, all would collect from Ziburis!

Answer: Rather, they are from the debtor (regarding a Kesuvah, the ex-husband) himself.

Answer (Rav Acha bar Yakov): No, they collect from the debtor. The case is, a man became an Arev for his son's damages, debts and (his son's wife's) Kesuvah.

Everyone collects like he is entitled to. The damaged party and creditor normally collect in the lifetime of the son. The father pays them like the son would have;

The Kesuvah was destined to be collected from the orphans after the husband's death. The father pays as orphans, from Ziburis.

Question: An Arev for a Kesuvah need not pay it! (The Gemara will explain why.)

Answer: The case is, the father accepted to be a Kablan (an Arev whom the creditor may ask to pay before he asks the borrower to pay).

Question: This is like the opinion that a Kablan becomes obligated even if the borrower has no property. According to the opinion that a Kablan becomes obligated only if the borrower has property, how can we answer?

Answer #1: The son had property. Later, it was flooded.

Answer #2: One is willing to obligate himself for his son's debts even if the son has no property.