Tractate Aracahin 14. Rambam laws of evaluations chapter 4 law 15. I would like to share here how i think the Rambam understood the subject in Arachin pg. 14 side a. But first I want to bring the basic subject itself. Rav Huna said if one sanctifies a field [and it is understood that the trees are sanctified with it], then when they are redeemed, each one is redeemed by itself. The field is redeemed (homer barley for 50 shekels). [A chomer is 30 seah, 7500 amot.] The gemara asks on him from a braita. If one sanctifies three trees in a beit seah (50 times 50 amot), the field is sanctified along with it. When they are redeemed, the trees are included in the redemption of the field. One does not pay extra for the trees. The Gemara answers this braita is like R. Shimon who holds one who sanctifies does so with a stingy eye. The Rambam understood that the statement of Rav Huna and the beginning of the braita do not disagree at all. The question the Gemara is raising is from the end of the braita when the redemption of the trees is included automatically in the redemption of the field- unlike Rav Huna. The answer is the braira is like R’ Shimon. That means because he sanctified the field with a stingy eye, less money comes to hedesh when it is redeemed. but to r akiva one who sanctifies sanctifies with a generous eye and so when the field and trees are redeemed, more money comes to hedesh. You can see all this in the language of the Rambam. He decided like Rav Huna straight and plain, and like the beginning of the braita. Sanctifying three trees for one seah sanctify the field along with then. The Rambam does not mention there that each is redeemed by itself because he never suggests anywhere that there could be a possibility of the redemption of one might include another. He already wrote when the field and trees are sanctified together they are redeemed separately. Furthermore, the Rambam sees no difficulty in the fact that when one sanctifies three tres the fieled comes alone with them, but more than three tree or less the field is not included. to the Rambam his does not disagree with Rav Huna at all. Rav Huna is talking about sanctifying a filed in while the trees come along with it; and to the Rambam that makes perfect sense. And in the opposite case where he sanctifies trees, to the Rambam it makes sense that only an exact amount of three trees per beit seah bring the field along with them. To the Rambam this is not difficulty at all. The difficulty from the braita was concerning the act of redemption. If when redeeming one, does the other come along? What makes this hard to understand at first glance is that Rashi understands the question of the braita on Rav Huna comes from the begining of the braita. Furthermore, the Rambam understands the when Rav Huna says when he sanctifies a field the trees come along with it he means there can be many more or many less than three trees per beit seah.--------------------------------------------------------מסכת ערכין דף י''ד ע''א 14. רמב''ם הלכות ערכין פרק ד'. I would like to share here how i think the רמב’’ם understood the subject in arachin pg. 14 side a. but first I want to bring the basic subject itself. רב הונא said if one sanctifies a field [and it is understood that the trees are מקדיש with it] then when they are נפדה each one is נפדה by itself. The field is נפדה בית חומר שעורים for חמישים shekels. [A חומר is thirtyסאה i.e., seven thousand five hundred אמות.] The גמרא asks on him from a ברייתא. If one sanctifies three trees in a בית סאה (fifty by times fifty cubits,), the field is מקדיש along with it. when they are נפדה, the trees are included in the פדיון of the field. One does not pay extra for the trees. The גמרא answers this ברייתא is like ר' שמעון who holds one who sanctifies does so with a stingy eye. The רמב’’ם understood that the statement of רב הונא and the beginning of the ברייתא do not disagree at all. The question the גמרא is raising is from the end of the ברייתא when the פדיון of the trees is included automatically in the פדיון of the field. Unlike רב הונא. and the answer is the ברייתא is like ר' שמעון. That means because he מקדיש the field with a stingy eye, less money comes to הקדש when it is נפדה. but to ר' עקיבא one who sanctifies does so with a generous eye and so when the field and trees are נפדה, more money comes to הקדש. you can see all this in the language of the רמב’’ם. He decided like רב הונא straight and plain and like the beginning of the ברייתא. THAT IS: sanctifying three trees for one סאה sanctifies the field along with them. The רמב’’ם does not mention there that each is נפדה by itself because he never suggests anywhere that there could be a possibility of the פדיון of one might include another. he already wrote when the field and trees are מקדיש together they re נפדה separately. Furthermore, the רמב’’ם sees no difficulty in the fact that when one sanctifies trees tress the fieled comes alone with them but more than three or less the field is not included. to the רמב’’ם his does not disagree with רב הונא at all. רב הונא is talking about sanctifying a filed in while the trees come along with it and to the רמב’’ם that makes perfect sense. And in the opposite case where he מקדיש trees to the רמב’’ם it makes sense that only an exact amount of three trees per בית סאה bring the field along with them. To the רמב’’ם this is not difficulty at all. The difficulty from the ברייתא was concerning the act of פדיון. If when פודה one, does the other come along? What makes this hard to understand at first glance is that רש''י understands the question of the ברייתא on רב הונא comes from the begining of the ברייתא. Furthermore, the רמב’’ם understands the when רב הונא says when he sanctifies a field the trees come along with it he means there can be many more or many less than three trees per בית סאה.