Bava Kamma 7A

ובעל חוב בבינונית!

and the halakha of a creditor is to collect only from intermediate-quality land, not from superior-quality land.

וכי תימא סבר רבי עקיבא: בעל חוב נמי בעידית; איכא למיפרך: מה לבעל חוב ⁠– שכן יפה כחו בנזקין, תאמר בהקדש ⁠– שהורע כחו בנזקין!

And if you would say that R' Akiva holds that a creditor can collect the money owed him from superior-quality land as well, there is still a difficulty; the a fortiori inference can still be refuted in the following manner: What is notable about an ordinary creditor? He is notable in that the Torah enhanced his power with regard to payment of damages, as an ordinary person can collect payment of damages for loss or injury caused by another’s ox. But can you say the same about the Temple treasury of consecrated property, with regard to which the Torah weakened its power with regard to payment of damages, not allowing it to collect such compensation? Accordingly, even if a creditor collects from superior-quality land, it does not necessarily follow that a Temple treasurer would also do so. It is therefore apparent that R' Akiva’s a fortiori inference is not referring to the case of one who donates money to the Temple.

לעולם דנגח תורא דידן לתורא דהקדש. ודקא קשיא לך: ״שור רעהו״ אמר רחמנא ⁠– ולא שור של הקדש; רבי עקיבא סבר לה כרבי שמעון בן מנסיא –

The Talmud rejects this: Actually, we can explain that we are dealing here with a case where our ox gored an ox that is consecrated property. And with regard to that which posed a difficulty for you about this explanation, i.e., that God states: “The ox of another” (Exodus 21:35), which indicates that liability is incurred only for damaging another person’s ox but not for an ox consecrated to the Temple, R' Akiva disagrees with that interpretation and holds in accordance with the opinion of R' Shimon ben Menasya.