Solving a contradiction TB Baba Kama 7

Abaye raises a contradiction between two biblical verses concerning in which form restitution should be paid to Rava. “Abaye raises a contradiction and addresses it to Rava: It is written: “The best of his field and of the best of his vineyard he shall pay” (Exodus 22:4), which indicates that from his best-quality land, yes, he shall pay, but from something else, no, he shall not pay.

“But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit and not cover it, and an ox or a donkey fall therein, the owner of the pit shall pay; he shall recompense money to its owners” (Exodus 21:33–34)? Since the verse states: “The owner of the pit shall pay,” the additional term “he shall recompense” is superfluous. It therefore serves to include any item worth money, and even bran, a relatively inferior commodity, as valid forms of restitution.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara tries to resolve this contradiction with four different solutions before settling on the fifth and last as the correct explanation. The first differentiates between the state of mind of the person whether he is willing to pay the damages of his own free will or the person who has to pay against his will.

The second solution differentiates when the damages will be paid. The same parcel of land is worth more in  Nisan than in Tishre because in Nissan the whole planting and growing  season is ahead of the farmer while in Tishre the growing season is over because the harvest is brought in.  If the person who suffered the damage is willing to accept a lower quality of land where he would accrue more land because it is worth less than the best quality land (עִידִּית) that is due him, he must also accept what the land is worth during high season when is worth more which means he get less land.

The third and fourth solutions are similar. The third compares it to a creditor who is entitled to the middle quality of land (בְּבֵינוֹנִית) and the fourth compares it the women’s legal right to collect the amount stipulated in the  ketubah from the lowest quality land (זִיבּוּרִית). The explanations go very much like the one above in the second solution.

The final solution is probably the easiest solution to solve the seemingly contradiction between the two verses. One verse deals with movable items and the other one deals with land.

“when Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, came from Rav’s academy, they explained it as follows: With regard to payment, all items are classified as property of the best quality, as, if an item cannot be sold here, it can be sold in another city. Since movable items are easily liquidated, they are always considered an acceptable form of payment. This is with the exception of land, which is not always easily sold. Therefore, the halakha is that the one liable for the damage must give the injured party payment from his best-quality land, which is easier to sell. This is in order to ensure the possibility that a buyer will jump at the opportunity to purchase it, thereby providing the injured party with the possibility of liquidating it. This resolves the contradiction. The phrase “of the best of his field” indicates that if payment is made with land it must be with superior-quality land, and the term “he shall recompense” indicates that if payment is made from movable property, anything worth money may be used.” (Sefaria.org translation)