Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 11, 2019 | ื—ืณ ื‘ืชืžื•ื– ืชืฉืขืดื˜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.ย 

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Arakhin 25

How is the “chomer of barley” calculated? Do deep cracks or tall rocks in the field enter into the calculation? What is the amount that one pays each each of the Jubilee cycle? Can one pay in installments? Does one pay based on the value of the year one sanctified it or the year one redeemed it? What happens to the field in the Jubilee year – if the owner redeemed it? If his son redeemed it? If someone else redeemed it? If a priest redeemed it? Is a daughter considered like a son for this issue? If a women sanctified a field, who can redeem it for her in a way that the field will be hers inthe Jubilee year?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ื‘ืืžืฆืข ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื“ื›ืœ ื›ืžื” ื“ืœื ืžืœื™ื ืœื™ื” ืฉื ื” ืœื ืžื’ืจืข ืœื™ื”

It is referring to any year in the middle of the Jubilee cycle. The mishnaโ€™s statement should be read as follows: After the Jubilee Year, one may not redeem a field for less than the price of a year, meaning that as long as a year has not been completed, he does not deduct it from the price of redemption. For example, if there are five and a half years remaining until the Jubilee Year, he must give six sela and six pundeyon for its redemption, not five and a half of each of a sela and a pundeyon.

ืžืื™ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ืื™ืŸ ืžื—ืฉื‘ื™ืŸ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืขื ื”ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื”ื ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื ืงืชื ื™ ืื™ืŸ ืžื—ืฉื‘ื™ืŸ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืขื ื”ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืžื” ื˜ืขื ืงืืžืจ ืžื” ื˜ืขื ืœื ื’ื•ืืœื™ืŸ ืœืื—ืจ ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉื ื” ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืื™ืŸ ืžื—ืฉื‘ื™ืŸ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืขื ื”ื”ืงื“ืฉ

The Gemara asks: What is the tanna teaching us? Is he saying that one does not count months in order to lower the price to be paid to the Temple treasury? Such an interpretation is untenable, as that halakha is taught explicitly in the following line of the mishna: One does not count months in order to lower the price to be paid to the Temple treasury. The Gemara answers: The tanna is not attempting to teach a separate halakha here. Rather, he employs the style known as: What is the reason, and the mishna is to be read as follows: What is the reason that one may not redeem a field after the Jubilee Year with less than the price of a complete year? It is because one does not count months in order to lower the price to be paid to the Temple treasury.

ืื™ืŸ ืžื—ืฉื‘ื™ืŸ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื—ืฉื‘ื™ืŸ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืขื ื”ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ื—ืฉื‘ ืœื• ื”ื›ื”ืŸ ืืช ื”ื›ืกืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ื”ืฉื ื™ื ื”ื ื•ืชืจื•ืช ืฉื ื™ื ืืชื” ืžื—ืฉื‘ ื•ืื™ ืืชื” ืžื—ืฉื‘ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื

ยง The mishna teaches: One does not count months in order to lower the price to be paid to the Temple treasury, but the Temple treasury may count months in order to raise the price of redemption. With regard to this statement, the Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that one does not count months in order to lower the price to be paid to the Temple treasury? The verse states: โ€œThen the priest shall reckon for him the money according to the years that remain until the Jubilee Year, and a deduction shall be made from your valuationโ€ (Leviticus 27:18). This teaches that you are to calculate years, but you are not to count months.

ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืฉืื ืืชื” ืจื•ืฆื” ืœืขืฉื•ืช ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืœืฉื ื” ืขื•ืฉื” ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืืงื“ืฉื™ื” ื‘ืคืœื’ื ื“ืืจื‘ืขื™ืŸ ื•ืชืžื ื™

Furthermore, from where is it derived that if you, i.e., the priest representing the Temple treasury, want to consider months as a year so that it will be considered as though a complete year has passed, you may do so? And what are the circumstances in which the priest would want to do this? For example, in a case where one consecrated the field in the middle of the forty-eighth year and wishes to redeem it. In such a case, if the months that have passed are calculated as a complete year, then the halakha with regard to the redemption of a field in the year preceding the Jubilee Year is in effect, and the field must be redeemed according to its full valuation of fifty sela per beit kor, rather than the redemption price of two sela and two pundeyon per beit kor that would apply if the calculation were based on two years remaining until the Jubilee.

ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ื—ืฉื‘ ืœื• ื”ื›ื”ืŸ ืžื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื

From where is this halakha derived? The verse states: โ€œThen the priest shall reckon for him,โ€ which indicates that the priest reckons for him in any case, i.e., the calculation is to be performed according to his discretion.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ืฉื“ื”ื• ื‘ืฉืขืช ื”ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื ื•ืชืŸ ื‘ื–ืจืข ื—ื•ืžืจ ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืฉืงืœ ื›ืกืฃ ื”ื™ื• ืฉื ื ืงืขื™ื ืขืžื•ืงื™ื ืขืฉืจื” ื˜ืคื—ื™ื ืื• ืกืœืขื™ื ื’ื‘ื•ื”ื™ื ืขืฉืจื” ื˜ืคื—ื™ื ืื™ื ืŸ ื ืžื“ื“ื™ืŸ ืขืžื” ืคื—ื•ืช ืžื›ืืŸ ื ืžื“ื“ื™ืŸ ืขืžื”

MISHNA: In the case of one who consecrates his ancestral field during a period when the Jubilee Year is observed and wishes to redeem it, he gives the Temple treasury fifty sela, a talmudic measure referred to in the Bible as silver shekels, for an area required for sowing a แธฅomer, a measure known in talmudic terminology as one kor, of barley seed (see Leviticus 27:16). If there were crevices [nekaโ€™im] ten handbreadths deep in the field, or if there were boulders ten handbreadths high, then when calculating the redemption price those areas are not measured with the rest of the field. But if the depth of the crevices, or the height of the boulders, was less than that amount, they are measured with the rest of the field.

ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉื” ืฉืชื™ื ื•ืฉืœืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ืœืคื ื™ ื”ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืกืœืข ื•ืคื•ื ื“ื™ื•ืŸ ืœืฉื ื” ื•ืื ืืžืจ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ื ื•ืชืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื ื” ื‘ืฉื ื” ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ืœื• ืืœื ื ื•ืชืŸ ืืช ื›ื•ืœื• ื›ืื—ื“ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื•ืื—ื“ ื›ืœ ื”ืื“ื ืžื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืœื›ืœ ืื“ื ืืœื ืฉื‘ืขืœื™ื ื ื•ืชื ื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื•ื›ืœ ืื“ื ืื™ืŸ ื ื•ืชื ื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืžืฉ

If he consecrated the field two or three years before the Jubilee Year and wishes to redeem it, he gives the Temple treasury a sela and a pundeyon, a pundeyon being one forty-eighth of a sela, per year remaining until the Jubilee Year. And if he said: I will give the payment for each year during that year, one does not listen to him; rather, he must give the entire sum in one payment. This is the halakha both with regard to a case where the owner redeems the field and a case where any other person redeems the field. What then is the difference between redemption by the owner and redemption by any other person? It is only that the owner gives an extra one-fifth in addition to the payment, and any other person who redeems the field does not give the additional one-fifth.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื ื›ื•ืจ ื–ืจืข ื•ืœื ื›ื•ืจ ืชื‘ื•ืื” ืžืคื•ืœืช ื™ื“ ื•ืœื ืžืคื•ืœืช ืฉื•ื•ืจื™ื ืชื ื™ ืœื•ื™ ืœื ืžืขื‘ื” ื•ืœื ืžื™ื“ืง ืืœื ื‘ื™ื ื•ื ื™

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: The phrase: โ€œThe sowing of a แธฅomer of barley shall be valued at fifty shekels of silverโ€ (Leviticus 27:16), is referring to an area required for sowing one kor, thirty seโ€™a, of barley seed, and not an area that yields one kor of barley crop, which is significantly smaller. This area is measured according to a field sowed by hand and not sowed by oxen. Since oxen sow the field by pulling a planter, which spreads the seeds at a higher density, the area containing one kor sown by oxen is smaller than the area of one kor sown by hand. Levi taught in a baraita: The area is not measured according to the sowing of a particularly dense layer of seeds, nor a sparse layer, but rather in accordance with an average amount of seeds.

ื”ื™ื• ืฉื ื ืงืขื™ื ืขืžื•ืงื™ื ื›ื•ืณ ื•ืœื™ืงื“ืฉื• ื‘ืื ืคื™ ื ืคืฉื™ื™ื”ื•

ยง The mishna teaches that if there were crevices ten handbreadths deep in the field, they are not measured with the rest of the field. The Gemara suggests: And let them be consecrated by themselves, as they are fit for sowing, and therefore they should require redemption at the same rate as the rest of the field. Accordingly, one could simply measure the field together with the crevices, and the measurement will be equal to the sum total of the sizes of the field and any crevices.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ื”ื•ื• ื‘ื™ืช ื›ื•ืจ ืœื ื”ื•ื• ืงื“ืฉื™ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืฉื“ื” ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืคื™ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื–ืจืข ื—ื•ืžืจ ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ื‘ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืฉืงืœ ื›ืกืฃ ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ืฉื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ื›ืขื ื™ืŸ ื”ื–ื” ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืœืชืš ื•ื—ืฆื™ ืœืชืš ืกืื” ื•ืชืจืงื‘ ื•ื—ืฆื™ ืชืจืงื‘ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉื“ื” ืžื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื

And if you would say that the mishna is referring to crevices that together take up only a small area, and since they do not measure a beit kor they are not consecrated, that cannot be correct: But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: The verse states: โ€œAnd if a man shall sanctify for the Lord part of his ancestral fieldโ€ (Leviticus 27:16). Why must the verse state: โ€œFieldโ€? Since it is stated in the same verse: โ€œYour valuation shall be according to its sowing; the sowing of a แธฅomer of barley shall be valued at fifty shekels of silver,โ€ one might say: I have derived only that this is the halakha when he consecrated a field like this, i.e., one measuring at least a beit kor. From where is it derived to include fields that are fit for sowing only a half-kor or half of a half-kor, a seโ€™a or a half-seโ€™a [vetarkav], or even half of a half-seโ€™a? The verse states: โ€œField,โ€ indicating that one may consecrate a field in any case, regardless of size.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืขื•ืงื‘ื ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ื”ื›ื ื‘ื ืงืขื™ื ืžืœืื™ื ืžื™ื ื“ืœืื• ื‘ื ื™ ื–ืจื™ืขื” ื ื™ื ื”ื• ื“ื™ืงื ื ืžื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ืกืœืขื™ื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

Mar Ukva bar แธคama said: Here, the mishna is referring to crevices that are full of water, which are not fit for sowing. Accordingly, they are not measured with the field, as the verse states that the valuation is in accordance with the areas fit for sowing barley seeds. The language is also precise, as the tanna teaches the halakha with regard to crevices similar to the way he teaches that of boulders, which are also not fit for sowing, as it states: If there were crevices ten handbreadths deep or boulders ten handbreadths high. Conclude from this that the mishna is referring to crevices unfit for sowing.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืคื—ื•ืช ืžื›ืืŸ ื ืžื™ ื”ื ื”ื• ื ื’ืื ื™ ื“ืืจืขื ืžื™ืงืจื• ืฉื™ื“ืจื™ ื“ืืจืขื ืžื™ืงืจื•

The Gemara asks: If so, then when the difference in height between the field and the crevices or boulders is less than ten handbreadths, they should also not be measured with the field. Why does the mishna indicate that they are measured with the field in this case? The Gemara responds: These crevices less than ten handbreadths deep are called cracks of the ground, and these boulders less than ten handbreadths tall are called spines of the ground. As there is no great disparity in surface level between them and the field itself, they are deemed part of the field and are therefore measured with it, despite the fact that they are unfit for sowing.

ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉื” ืฉืชื™ื ื•ืฉืœืฉ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ

ยง The mishna teaches that if he consecrated the field two or three years before the Jubilee Year and wishes to redeem it, he gives the Temple treasury a sela and a pundeyon per year. In this regard, the Sages taught a baraita that deals with the verse: โ€œBut if he sanctifies his field after the Jubilee, then the priest shall reckon for him the money according to the years that remain until the Jubilee Year, and a deduction shall be made from your valuationโ€ (Leviticus 27:18).

ื•ื ื’ืจืข ืžืขืจื›ืš ืืฃ ืžืŸ ื”ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืฉืื ืื›ืœื” ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืฉื ื” ืื• ืฉืชื™ื ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืœื ืื›ืœื” ืืœื ืฉื”ื™ืชื” ืœืคื ื™ื• ื ื•ืชืŸ ืกืœืข ื•ืคื•ื ื“ื™ื•ืŸ ืœืฉื ื”

The baraita states that the apparently superfluous phrase โ€œAnd a deduction shall be made from your valuationโ€ teaches that even the years that passed from the consecration of the field are deducted, and not only the years that passed before it was consecrated. That is, if the Temple treasury benefited from the fieldโ€™s produce for a year or two, or if the Temple treasury did not benefit from it but the field nevertheless remained before it, i.e., in the possession of the Temple treasury, he gives a sela and a pundeyon for each remaining year until the Jubilee Year.

ื•ืื ืืžืจ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ื ื•ืชืŸ ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉืื ืืžืจื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื”ืจื™ื ื• ื ื•ืชื ื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื ื” ื‘ืฉื ื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ื—ืฉื‘ ืœื• ื”ื›ื”ืŸ ืืช ื”ื›ืกืฃ ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื ื›ืกืฃ ื›ื•ืœื• ื›ืื—ื“ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื•ืื—ื“ ื›ืœ ืื“ื ืžื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืœื›ืœ ืื“ื ืฉื”ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื ื•ืชื ื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื•ื›ืœ ืื“ื ืื™ืŸ ื ื•ืชื ื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืžืฉ

ยง The mishna teaches: And if he said: I will give the payment for each year during that year, one does not listen to him; rather, he must give the entire sum in one payment. The Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that if the owner said: I will give the payment for each year during that year, that one does not listen to him? The verse states: โ€œThen the priest shall reckon for him the moneyโ€ (Leviticus 27:18). The term โ€œthe moneyโ€ indicates that the priest does not reckon the price for him unless all of the money will be paid together as one sum. This is the halakha with regard to both the owner and any other person. What then is the difference between redemption by the owner and redemption by any other person? It is that the owner gives an extra one-fifth in addition to the payment, and any other person does not give the additional one-fifth.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉื” ื•ื’ืืœื” ืื™ื ื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืžื™ื“ื• ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื’ืืœื” ื‘ื ื• ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืœืื‘ื™ื• ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื’ืืœื” ืื—ืจ ืื• ืื—ื“ ืžื”ืงืจื•ื‘ื™ื ื•ื’ืืœื” ืžื™ื“ื• ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืœื›ื”ื ื™ื ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ

MISHNA: If one consecrated his ancestral field and then redeemed it himself, it is not removed from his possession to be divided among the priests during the Jubilee Year. If his son redeemed it, the field is removed from the sonโ€™s possession and returns to his father during the Jubilee Year. But if another person or one of his other relatives redeemed the field and the owner subsequently redeemed it from his possession, the field is removed from the ownerโ€™s possession and given to the priests during the Jubilee Year.

ื’ืืœื” ืื—ื“ ืžืŸ ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื•ื”ืจื™ ื”ื™ื ืชื—ืช ื™ื“ื• ืœื ื™ืืžืจ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื”ื™ื ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืœื›ื”ื ื™ื ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื•ื”ืจื™ ื”ื™ื ืชื—ืช ื™ื“ื™ ื”ืจื™ ื”ื™ื ืฉืœื™ ืืœื ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืžืชื—ืช ื™ื“ื• ื•ืžืชื—ืœืงืช ืœื›ืœ ืื—ื™ื• ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื

If one of the priests redeemed the field and when the Jubilee arrived it was in his possession, he may not say: Since it is removed from the possession of the one who redeemed it and given to the priests during the Jubilee Year, and since it is already in my possession, it is mine. Rather, the field is removed from his possession and is divided among all his brethren, the priests.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if one consecrated his ancestral field and his son redeemed it from the Temple treasury, the field returns to the original owner when the Jubilee arrives. By contrast, if another person redeemed it, the field is transferred to the priests during the Jubilee Year. With regard to this matter, the Sages taught a baraita analyzing the verse: โ€œAnd if he will not redeem the field, or if he sold the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed anymore. But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy for the Lord, as a dedicated field; his ancestral possession shall be for the priestโ€ (Leviticus 27:20โ€“21).

ืื ืœื ื™ื’ืืœ ืืช ื”ืฉื“ื” ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื•ืื ืžื›ืจ ืืช ื”ืฉื“ื” ื’ื™ื–ื‘ืจ

The phrase โ€œand if he will not redeem the fieldโ€ is referring to a case where the owner did not redeem it and it remained in the possession of the Temple treasury, and the phrase โ€œor if he sold the fieldโ€ is referring to a situation where the Temple treasurer sold it to another person. The verse indicates that in both of these instances, possession of the field goes to the priests.

ืœืื™ืฉ ืื—ืจ ืœืื—ืจ ื•ืœื ืœื‘ืŸ ืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ืœืื—ืจ ื•ืœื ืœื‘ืŸ ืื• ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ืœืื—ืจ ื•ืœื ืœืื— ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืฉ ื”ืจื™ ืื— ืืžื•ืจ ื”ื ืžื” ืื ื™ ืžืงื™ื™ื ืื—ืจ ื•ืœื ืœื‘ืŸ

The baraita continues: โ€œTo another man,โ€ indicates that the field is transferred to the priests during the Jubilee Year only if it had been sold to another, and not to the son of the one who consecrated it. The baraita asks: Do you say that the verse is referring to another and not to his son? Or perhaps the verse means only that it was sold to another and not to his brother? The baraita rejects this suggestion: When it says: โ€œMan,โ€ the brother is stated, i.e., he is included in the category of a man. How do I realize the meaning of: โ€œAnother manโ€? It must mean: Another, but not his son.

ื•ืžื” ืจืื™ืช ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืืช ื”ื‘ืŸ ื•ืœื”ื•ืฆื™ื ืืช ื”ืื— ืžืจื‘ื” ืื ื™ ื”ื‘ืŸ ืฉื›ืŸ ืงื ืชื—ืช ืื‘ื™ื• ืœื™ืขื™ื“ื” ื•ืœืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™

The baraita asks: And what did you see to include the son in the same category as the father, and to exclude the brother? The baraita answers: I include the son, as he stands in place of his father with regard to designating a Hebrew maidservant as a wife for himself, in a case where the father purchased the Hebrew maidservant and designates her as a wife for his son, which he cannot do for his brother. And he also stands in place of his father with regard to a Hebrew slave, as when one inherits a Hebrew slave from his father, the slave is obligated to serve the son and does not go free, whereas if the deceasedโ€™s brother inherits the servant, he goes free.

ืื“ืจื‘ื” ืžืจื‘ื” ืื ื™ ืืช ื”ืื— ืฉื›ืŸ ืงื ืชื—ืช ืื—ื™ื• ืœื™ื™ื‘ื•ื ื›ืœื•ื ื™ืฉ ื™ื‘ื•ื ืืœื ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื”ื ื™ืฉ ื‘ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื™ื‘ื•ื

The baraita objects: On the contrary, I should include the brother, as he stands in his brotherโ€™s place with regard to levirate marriage, which a son does not. The baraita rejects this suggestion: Is there ever a case of levirate marriage other than a case where there is no son? In a case where there is a son there is no levirate marriage. This indicates that with regard to levirate marriage as well, a son stands in place of the deceased more than a brother of the deceased.

ื•ืชื™ืคื•ืง ืœื™ื” ื“ื”ื›ื ืชืจืชื™ ื•ื”ื›ื ื—ื“ื

The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to answer the question in this way? Let one derive the halakha that the son stands in place of the father, and the brother does not, from the simple fact that here, in support of extending the fatherโ€™s status to the son, there are two justifications, i.e., the halakha of designation of the Hebrew maidservant and the halakha of the Hebrew slave, and there, in support of extending it to the brother, there is only one justification, i.e., the halakha of levirate marriage?

ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ืžื”ืื™ ืคื™ืจื›ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื•ื ื“ื ืคืงื ืœื™ื” ื›ืœื•ื ื™ืฉ ื™ื‘ื•ื ืืœื ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ืŸ

The Gemara responds: That answer is invalid because the halakha that a son, but not a brother, stands in place of his father with regard to a Hebrew slave is not written explicitly in the Torah, but the tanna also derives it from this same refutation, namely: Is there ever a case of levirate marriage other than a case where there is no son. Without this refutation there would not be more justifications in support of extending the fatherโ€™s status to the son rather than to the brother. Accordingly, this last refutation is the basis for the conclusion.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื•ื” ื‘ืช ืžื”ื• ืฉืชืขืžื™ื“ ืฉื“ื” ืœืื‘ื™ื” ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ื™ื‘ื•ื ื‘ืŸ ื•ื‘ืช ื›ื™ ื”ื“ื“ื™ ืคื˜ืจื™ ืžื•ืงืžื” ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ื ื—ืœื” ื‘ืช ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื‘ืŸ ื›ื™ ืื—ืจ ื“ืžื™ื ืœื ืžื•ืงืžื”

ยง Rabba bar Avuh raises a dilemma: If a daughter redeemed the ancestral field that her father consecrated, what is the halakha? Does she thereby preserve possession of the field for her father at the Jubilee Year, like a son? Rabba bar Avuh explains the two sides of the dilemma: Perhaps the halakha is that since with regard to levirate marriage, a son and a daughter are like one another, as both exempt their fatherโ€™s widow from the obligation of levirate marriage, the daughter preserves possession of the field for her father. Or perhaps the halakha is that since with regard to inheritance, when there is a son, a daughter is considered like another person, as she does not inherit a share of her fatherโ€™s estate, she does not preserve possession of the field for her father.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื›ืœ ืฉื”ื•ื ืื—ืจ ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื‘ืŸ ื•ื”ื ื ืžื™ ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื‘ืŸ ื›ื™ ืื—ืจ ื“ืžื™ื

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita that the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Anyone who is considered like another person when there is a son does not preserve possession of the field for the owner. And with regard to this, i.e., a daughter, as well, when there is a son, she is considered like another person.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืืฉื” ืžื™ ืžืขืžื™ื“ ืœื” ืฉื“ื” ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ืงื™ื ืœื” ืฉื›ืŸ ื™ื•ืจืฉื” ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ื‘ืŸ ืžื•ืงื™ื ืœื” ืฉื›ืŸ ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื‘ืจืื•ื™ ื›ื‘ืžื•ื—ื–ืง ืชื™ืงื•

Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: If a woman consecrated her ancestral field, which of her heirs can redeem the field and thereby preserve possession of the field for her during the Jubilee Year? Can her husband preserve it for her, as he inherits from her if she dies during his lifetime? Or perhaps her son can preserve if for her, as if the son inherits from his mother, when she was not married at the time of her death, he takes in inheritance the property due to her as he does the property she possessed? There is a halakha that if someone dies and his heir is a woman who is already deceased, her son inherits that property, not her late husband. No resolution is offered, and therefore the Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืจืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ืžืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉื” ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉืชื™ ืฉื ื™ื ืœืคื ื™ ื”ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ืžื”ื• ืฉืชืฆื ืœื›ื”ื ื™ื

ยง Rami bar แธคama raised a dilemma before Rav แธคisda: If one consecrated his ancestral field less than two years before the Jubilee Year and did not redeem it, what is the halakha with regard to whether or not it is to be removed from his possession during the Jubilee and given to the priests?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืื™ ื“ืขืชื™ืš ื•ื ื’ืจืข ืžืขืจื›ืš ื•ื”ื™ื” ื”ืฉื“ื” ื‘ืฆืืชื• ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื“ื‘ืช ื’ื™ืจืขื•ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื“ืœืื• ื‘ืช ื’ื™ืจืขื•ืŸ ืœื

Rav แธคisda said to him: What is your reasoning? Is it that since the verse states: โ€œAnd a deduction shall be made from your valuationโ€ (Leviticus 27:18), which indicates that the field is redeemed with a deduction according to the years remaining until the Jubilee Year, and the verse also states: โ€œBut the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy for the Lordโ€ฆhis ancestral possession shall be for the priestโ€ (Leviticus 27:21), this indicates that if the field is fit for deduction, then yes, when it is not redeemed by the owner it is given to the priests at the Jubilee Year, but with regard to a field that is not fit for deduction, i.e., one consecrated less than two years before the Jubilee Year, which must be redeemed according to its full valuation (24a), no, it is not given to the priests but rather is returned to the owner?

ืื“ืจื‘ื” ืื ืœื ื™ื’ืืœ ื”ืฉื“ื” ื•ื”ื™ื” ื”ืฉื“ื” ื‘ืฆืืชื• ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื•ื”ืื™ ื ืžื™ ื‘ืช ื’ืื•ืœื” ื”ื™ื

Rav แธคisda responds: On the contrary, the verse states: โ€œAnd if he will not redeem the field, or if he sold the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed anymore. But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy for the Lordโ€ฆhis ancestral possession shall be for the priestโ€ (Leviticus 27:20โ€“21). This indicates that any field that could have been redeemed but was not redeemed becomes the possession of the priests. And this field, which was consecrated less than two years before the Jubilee Year, is also fit for redemption. Therefore, if it was not redeemed it is given to the priests.

ื’ืืœื” ืื—ื“ ืžืŸ ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœื›ื”ืŸ ืชื”ื™ื” ืื—ื–ืชื• ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ

ยง The mishna teaches: If one of the priests redeemed the field and when the Jubilee Year arrived it was in his possession, he may not say: Since it is removed from the possession of the one who redeemed it and given to the priests during the Jubilee Year, and since it is already in my possession, it is mine. Rather, the field is removed from his possession and is divided among all of his brethren, the priests. With regard to this halakha, the Sages taught in a baraita: Why must the verse state: โ€œBut the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy for the Lordโ€ฆhis ancestral possession shall be for the priestโ€ (Leviticus 27:21)?

ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืฉื“ื” ืฉื™ื•ืฆื ืœื›ื”ื ื™ื ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื•ื’ืืœื” ืื—ื“ ืžืŸ ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื™ืืžืจ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ืชื—ืช ื™ื“ื™ ื•ืชื”ื ืฉืœื™ ื•ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื‘ืฉืœ ืื—ืจื™ื ืื ื™ ื–ื•ื›ื” ื‘ืฉืœ ืขืฆืžื™ ืœื ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ

The baraita explains: From where is it derived, with regard to a field that was consecrated and not redeemed by the owner, and therefore was to have been removed from the possession of the owner and given to the priests during the Jubilee Year, and one of the priests redeemed it before the Jubilee, from where is it derived that he may not say: Since it is removed from the possession of the owner and given to the priest at the Jubilee, and since it is already in my possession, it should therefore be mine? And this claim is supported by a logical inference: Since in the Jubilee Year I obtain fields of others that I did not previously redeem, is it not all the more so clear that I should retain my own field that I redeemed from the Temple treasury myself?

ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื—ื–ืชื• ืื—ื•ื–ื” ืฉืœื• ื•ืื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืฉืœื• ื”ื ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื™ื•ืฆื ืžืชื—ืช ื™ื“ื• ื•ืžืชื—ืœืงืช ืœืื—ื™ื• ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื

Therefore, the verse states: โ€œHis ancestral possession,โ€ which can be interpreted to mean that only his ancestral field, i.e., one that the priest inherited from his own ancestors, is automatically his, but this field is not his. How so, i.e., how is this field treated? It is removed from his possession and is divided among all of his brethren, the priests.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื’ื™ืข ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื•ืœื ื ื’ืืœื” ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ืœืชื•ื›ื” ื•ื ื•ืชื ื™ืŸ ืืช ื“ืžื™ื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ื•ืœื ื ื•ืชื ื™ืŸ

MISHNA: If one consecrated his ancestral field and the Jubilee Year arrived and it was not redeemed by the owner or anyone else, the priests enter into the field and give its redemption payment to the Temple treasury; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: They enter into the field, but they do not give its redemption payment to the Temple treasury.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ื•ืœื ื ื•ืชื ื™ืŸ ืืœื ื ืงืจืืช ืฉื“ื” ืจื˜ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืขื“ ื”ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื”ืฉื ื™ ื”ื’ื™ืข ื”ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื”ืฉื ื™ ื•ืœื ื ื’ืืœื” ื ืงืจืืช ืจื˜ื•ืฉื™ ืจื˜ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืขื“ ื”ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื”ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ ืœืขื•ืœื ืื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ืœืชื•ื›ื” ืขื“ ืฉื™ื’ืืœื ื” ืื—ืจ

Rabbi Eliezer says: The priests do not enter into the field, and they also do not give its redemption payment to the Temple treasury. Rather, the field remains in the possession of the Temple treasury, and it is called: An abandoned field, until the second Jubilee Year. If the second Jubilee arrived and it was still not redeemed, it is called: An abandoned field from among the abandoned fields, meaning one that was abandoned twice, until the third Jubilee. In any case, the priests never enter into a consecrated field during the Jubilee Year until another person redeems it first.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื’ืžืจ ืงื“ืฉ ืงื“ืฉ ืžืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ื‘ื™ืช

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehudaโ€™s opinion that the priests who enter into an unredeemed consecrated field during the Jubilee Year must give its redemption payment to the Temple treasury? The Gemara answers: He derives this halakha from a verbal analogy from the word โ€œholyโ€ stated in reference to an ancestral field, and the word โ€œholyโ€ that appears with regard to one who consecrates a house.

ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ื‘ื“ืžื™ื ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ื‘ื“ืžื™ื

The Gemara explains: Just as there, with regard to one who consecrates a house, where the verse states: โ€œAnd when a man shall consecrate his house to be holy for the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 27:14), it can be redeemed from the Temple treasury only by payment of money, as the verse concludes: โ€œAs the priest shall value it, so shall it stand,โ€ so too here, where the verse states with regard to the priests entering into an ancestral field: โ€œBut the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy for the Lordโ€ฆhis ancestral possession shall be for the priestโ€ (Leviticus 27:21), the priests can enter the field only by payment of money.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื’ืžืจ ืงื“ืฉ ืงื“ืฉ ืžื›ื‘ืฉื™ ืขืฆืจืช ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ื‘ื—ื ื ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ื‘ื—ื ื

The Gemara asks: And what is the source for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that the priests are not required to give the redemption payment to the Temple treasury? The Gemara answers: He derives the halakha from the word โ€œholyโ€ used with regard to an ancestral field, and the word โ€œholyโ€ used with regard to the communal peace offering of two lambs that accompanies the two loaves on Shavuot. Just as there, with regard to the offering of two lambs, where the verse states: โ€œThey shall be holy to the Lord for the priestโ€ (Leviticus 23:20), the lambs are given to the priests for free, as is the halakha with regard to all offerings to which members of the priesthood are entitled, so too here, the consecrated and unredeemed ancestral field is given to the priests for free.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ [ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”] ื ืžื™ ื ื™ืœื™ืฃ ืžื›ื‘ืฉื™ ืขืฆืจืช ื“ื ื™ืŸ ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yehuda, let him also derive the halakha by a verbal analogy from the two lambs brought on Shavuot. Why does he disagree with Rabbi Shimon? The Gemara answers: One derives the halakha with regard to items consecrated for Temple maintenance, such as an ancestral field,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.ย 

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Arakhin 25

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Arakhin 25

ื‘ืืžืฆืข ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื“ื›ืœ ื›ืžื” ื“ืœื ืžืœื™ื ืœื™ื” ืฉื ื” ืœื ืžื’ืจืข ืœื™ื”

It is referring to any year in the middle of the Jubilee cycle. The mishnaโ€™s statement should be read as follows: After the Jubilee Year, one may not redeem a field for less than the price of a year, meaning that as long as a year has not been completed, he does not deduct it from the price of redemption. For example, if there are five and a half years remaining until the Jubilee Year, he must give six sela and six pundeyon for its redemption, not five and a half of each of a sela and a pundeyon.

ืžืื™ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ืื™ืŸ ืžื—ืฉื‘ื™ืŸ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืขื ื”ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื”ื ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื ืงืชื ื™ ืื™ืŸ ืžื—ืฉื‘ื™ืŸ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืขื ื”ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืžื” ื˜ืขื ืงืืžืจ ืžื” ื˜ืขื ืœื ื’ื•ืืœื™ืŸ ืœืื—ืจ ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉื ื” ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืื™ืŸ ืžื—ืฉื‘ื™ืŸ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืขื ื”ื”ืงื“ืฉ

The Gemara asks: What is the tanna teaching us? Is he saying that one does not count months in order to lower the price to be paid to the Temple treasury? Such an interpretation is untenable, as that halakha is taught explicitly in the following line of the mishna: One does not count months in order to lower the price to be paid to the Temple treasury. The Gemara answers: The tanna is not attempting to teach a separate halakha here. Rather, he employs the style known as: What is the reason, and the mishna is to be read as follows: What is the reason that one may not redeem a field after the Jubilee Year with less than the price of a complete year? It is because one does not count months in order to lower the price to be paid to the Temple treasury.

ืื™ืŸ ืžื—ืฉื‘ื™ืŸ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื—ืฉื‘ื™ืŸ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืขื ื”ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ื—ืฉื‘ ืœื• ื”ื›ื”ืŸ ืืช ื”ื›ืกืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ื”ืฉื ื™ื ื”ื ื•ืชืจื•ืช ืฉื ื™ื ืืชื” ืžื—ืฉื‘ ื•ืื™ ืืชื” ืžื—ืฉื‘ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื

ยง The mishna teaches: One does not count months in order to lower the price to be paid to the Temple treasury, but the Temple treasury may count months in order to raise the price of redemption. With regard to this statement, the Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that one does not count months in order to lower the price to be paid to the Temple treasury? The verse states: โ€œThen the priest shall reckon for him the money according to the years that remain until the Jubilee Year, and a deduction shall be made from your valuationโ€ (Leviticus 27:18). This teaches that you are to calculate years, but you are not to count months.

ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืฉืื ืืชื” ืจื•ืฆื” ืœืขืฉื•ืช ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืœืฉื ื” ืขื•ืฉื” ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืืงื“ืฉื™ื” ื‘ืคืœื’ื ื“ืืจื‘ืขื™ืŸ ื•ืชืžื ื™

Furthermore, from where is it derived that if you, i.e., the priest representing the Temple treasury, want to consider months as a year so that it will be considered as though a complete year has passed, you may do so? And what are the circumstances in which the priest would want to do this? For example, in a case where one consecrated the field in the middle of the forty-eighth year and wishes to redeem it. In such a case, if the months that have passed are calculated as a complete year, then the halakha with regard to the redemption of a field in the year preceding the Jubilee Year is in effect, and the field must be redeemed according to its full valuation of fifty sela per beit kor, rather than the redemption price of two sela and two pundeyon per beit kor that would apply if the calculation were based on two years remaining until the Jubilee.

ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ื—ืฉื‘ ืœื• ื”ื›ื”ืŸ ืžื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื

From where is this halakha derived? The verse states: โ€œThen the priest shall reckon for him,โ€ which indicates that the priest reckons for him in any case, i.e., the calculation is to be performed according to his discretion.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ืฉื“ื”ื• ื‘ืฉืขืช ื”ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื ื•ืชืŸ ื‘ื–ืจืข ื—ื•ืžืจ ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืฉืงืœ ื›ืกืฃ ื”ื™ื• ืฉื ื ืงืขื™ื ืขืžื•ืงื™ื ืขืฉืจื” ื˜ืคื—ื™ื ืื• ืกืœืขื™ื ื’ื‘ื•ื”ื™ื ืขืฉืจื” ื˜ืคื—ื™ื ืื™ื ืŸ ื ืžื“ื“ื™ืŸ ืขืžื” ืคื—ื•ืช ืžื›ืืŸ ื ืžื“ื“ื™ืŸ ืขืžื”

MISHNA: In the case of one who consecrates his ancestral field during a period when the Jubilee Year is observed and wishes to redeem it, he gives the Temple treasury fifty sela, a talmudic measure referred to in the Bible as silver shekels, for an area required for sowing a แธฅomer, a measure known in talmudic terminology as one kor, of barley seed (see Leviticus 27:16). If there were crevices [nekaโ€™im] ten handbreadths deep in the field, or if there were boulders ten handbreadths high, then when calculating the redemption price those areas are not measured with the rest of the field. But if the depth of the crevices, or the height of the boulders, was less than that amount, they are measured with the rest of the field.

ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉื” ืฉืชื™ื ื•ืฉืœืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ืœืคื ื™ ื”ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืกืœืข ื•ืคื•ื ื“ื™ื•ืŸ ืœืฉื ื” ื•ืื ืืžืจ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ื ื•ืชืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื ื” ื‘ืฉื ื” ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ืœื• ืืœื ื ื•ืชืŸ ืืช ื›ื•ืœื• ื›ืื—ื“ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื•ืื—ื“ ื›ืœ ื”ืื“ื ืžื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืœื›ืœ ืื“ื ืืœื ืฉื‘ืขืœื™ื ื ื•ืชื ื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื•ื›ืœ ืื“ื ืื™ืŸ ื ื•ืชื ื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืžืฉ

If he consecrated the field two or three years before the Jubilee Year and wishes to redeem it, he gives the Temple treasury a sela and a pundeyon, a pundeyon being one forty-eighth of a sela, per year remaining until the Jubilee Year. And if he said: I will give the payment for each year during that year, one does not listen to him; rather, he must give the entire sum in one payment. This is the halakha both with regard to a case where the owner redeems the field and a case where any other person redeems the field. What then is the difference between redemption by the owner and redemption by any other person? It is only that the owner gives an extra one-fifth in addition to the payment, and any other person who redeems the field does not give the additional one-fifth.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื ื›ื•ืจ ื–ืจืข ื•ืœื ื›ื•ืจ ืชื‘ื•ืื” ืžืคื•ืœืช ื™ื“ ื•ืœื ืžืคื•ืœืช ืฉื•ื•ืจื™ื ืชื ื™ ืœื•ื™ ืœื ืžืขื‘ื” ื•ืœื ืžื™ื“ืง ืืœื ื‘ื™ื ื•ื ื™

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: The phrase: โ€œThe sowing of a แธฅomer of barley shall be valued at fifty shekels of silverโ€ (Leviticus 27:16), is referring to an area required for sowing one kor, thirty seโ€™a, of barley seed, and not an area that yields one kor of barley crop, which is significantly smaller. This area is measured according to a field sowed by hand and not sowed by oxen. Since oxen sow the field by pulling a planter, which spreads the seeds at a higher density, the area containing one kor sown by oxen is smaller than the area of one kor sown by hand. Levi taught in a baraita: The area is not measured according to the sowing of a particularly dense layer of seeds, nor a sparse layer, but rather in accordance with an average amount of seeds.

ื”ื™ื• ืฉื ื ืงืขื™ื ืขืžื•ืงื™ื ื›ื•ืณ ื•ืœื™ืงื“ืฉื• ื‘ืื ืคื™ ื ืคืฉื™ื™ื”ื•

ยง The mishna teaches that if there were crevices ten handbreadths deep in the field, they are not measured with the rest of the field. The Gemara suggests: And let them be consecrated by themselves, as they are fit for sowing, and therefore they should require redemption at the same rate as the rest of the field. Accordingly, one could simply measure the field together with the crevices, and the measurement will be equal to the sum total of the sizes of the field and any crevices.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ื”ื•ื• ื‘ื™ืช ื›ื•ืจ ืœื ื”ื•ื• ืงื“ืฉื™ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืฉื“ื” ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืคื™ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื–ืจืข ื—ื•ืžืจ ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ื‘ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืฉืงืœ ื›ืกืฃ ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ืฉื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ื›ืขื ื™ืŸ ื”ื–ื” ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืœืชืš ื•ื—ืฆื™ ืœืชืš ืกืื” ื•ืชืจืงื‘ ื•ื—ืฆื™ ืชืจืงื‘ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉื“ื” ืžื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื

And if you would say that the mishna is referring to crevices that together take up only a small area, and since they do not measure a beit kor they are not consecrated, that cannot be correct: But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: The verse states: โ€œAnd if a man shall sanctify for the Lord part of his ancestral fieldโ€ (Leviticus 27:16). Why must the verse state: โ€œFieldโ€? Since it is stated in the same verse: โ€œYour valuation shall be according to its sowing; the sowing of a แธฅomer of barley shall be valued at fifty shekels of silver,โ€ one might say: I have derived only that this is the halakha when he consecrated a field like this, i.e., one measuring at least a beit kor. From where is it derived to include fields that are fit for sowing only a half-kor or half of a half-kor, a seโ€™a or a half-seโ€™a [vetarkav], or even half of a half-seโ€™a? The verse states: โ€œField,โ€ indicating that one may consecrate a field in any case, regardless of size.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืขื•ืงื‘ื ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ื”ื›ื ื‘ื ืงืขื™ื ืžืœืื™ื ืžื™ื ื“ืœืื• ื‘ื ื™ ื–ืจื™ืขื” ื ื™ื ื”ื• ื“ื™ืงื ื ืžื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ืกืœืขื™ื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

Mar Ukva bar แธคama said: Here, the mishna is referring to crevices that are full of water, which are not fit for sowing. Accordingly, they are not measured with the field, as the verse states that the valuation is in accordance with the areas fit for sowing barley seeds. The language is also precise, as the tanna teaches the halakha with regard to crevices similar to the way he teaches that of boulders, which are also not fit for sowing, as it states: If there were crevices ten handbreadths deep or boulders ten handbreadths high. Conclude from this that the mishna is referring to crevices unfit for sowing.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืคื—ื•ืช ืžื›ืืŸ ื ืžื™ ื”ื ื”ื• ื ื’ืื ื™ ื“ืืจืขื ืžื™ืงืจื• ืฉื™ื“ืจื™ ื“ืืจืขื ืžื™ืงืจื•

The Gemara asks: If so, then when the difference in height between the field and the crevices or boulders is less than ten handbreadths, they should also not be measured with the field. Why does the mishna indicate that they are measured with the field in this case? The Gemara responds: These crevices less than ten handbreadths deep are called cracks of the ground, and these boulders less than ten handbreadths tall are called spines of the ground. As there is no great disparity in surface level between them and the field itself, they are deemed part of the field and are therefore measured with it, despite the fact that they are unfit for sowing.

ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉื” ืฉืชื™ื ื•ืฉืœืฉ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ

ยง The mishna teaches that if he consecrated the field two or three years before the Jubilee Year and wishes to redeem it, he gives the Temple treasury a sela and a pundeyon per year. In this regard, the Sages taught a baraita that deals with the verse: โ€œBut if he sanctifies his field after the Jubilee, then the priest shall reckon for him the money according to the years that remain until the Jubilee Year, and a deduction shall be made from your valuationโ€ (Leviticus 27:18).

ื•ื ื’ืจืข ืžืขืจื›ืš ืืฃ ืžืŸ ื”ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืฉืื ืื›ืœื” ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืฉื ื” ืื• ืฉืชื™ื ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืœื ืื›ืœื” ืืœื ืฉื”ื™ืชื” ืœืคื ื™ื• ื ื•ืชืŸ ืกืœืข ื•ืคื•ื ื“ื™ื•ืŸ ืœืฉื ื”

The baraita states that the apparently superfluous phrase โ€œAnd a deduction shall be made from your valuationโ€ teaches that even the years that passed from the consecration of the field are deducted, and not only the years that passed before it was consecrated. That is, if the Temple treasury benefited from the fieldโ€™s produce for a year or two, or if the Temple treasury did not benefit from it but the field nevertheless remained before it, i.e., in the possession of the Temple treasury, he gives a sela and a pundeyon for each remaining year until the Jubilee Year.

ื•ืื ืืžืจ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ื ื•ืชืŸ ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉืื ืืžืจื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื”ืจื™ื ื• ื ื•ืชื ื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื ื” ื‘ืฉื ื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ื—ืฉื‘ ืœื• ื”ื›ื”ืŸ ืืช ื”ื›ืกืฃ ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื ื›ืกืฃ ื›ื•ืœื• ื›ืื—ื“ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื•ืื—ื“ ื›ืœ ืื“ื ืžื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืœื›ืœ ืื“ื ืฉื”ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื ื•ืชื ื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื•ื›ืœ ืื“ื ืื™ืŸ ื ื•ืชื ื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืžืฉ

ยง The mishna teaches: And if he said: I will give the payment for each year during that year, one does not listen to him; rather, he must give the entire sum in one payment. The Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that if the owner said: I will give the payment for each year during that year, that one does not listen to him? The verse states: โ€œThen the priest shall reckon for him the moneyโ€ (Leviticus 27:18). The term โ€œthe moneyโ€ indicates that the priest does not reckon the price for him unless all of the money will be paid together as one sum. This is the halakha with regard to both the owner and any other person. What then is the difference between redemption by the owner and redemption by any other person? It is that the owner gives an extra one-fifth in addition to the payment, and any other person does not give the additional one-fifth.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉื” ื•ื’ืืœื” ืื™ื ื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืžื™ื“ื• ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื’ืืœื” ื‘ื ื• ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืœืื‘ื™ื• ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื’ืืœื” ืื—ืจ ืื• ืื—ื“ ืžื”ืงืจื•ื‘ื™ื ื•ื’ืืœื” ืžื™ื“ื• ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืœื›ื”ื ื™ื ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ

MISHNA: If one consecrated his ancestral field and then redeemed it himself, it is not removed from his possession to be divided among the priests during the Jubilee Year. If his son redeemed it, the field is removed from the sonโ€™s possession and returns to his father during the Jubilee Year. But if another person or one of his other relatives redeemed the field and the owner subsequently redeemed it from his possession, the field is removed from the ownerโ€™s possession and given to the priests during the Jubilee Year.

ื’ืืœื” ืื—ื“ ืžืŸ ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื•ื”ืจื™ ื”ื™ื ืชื—ืช ื™ื“ื• ืœื ื™ืืžืจ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื”ื™ื ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืœื›ื”ื ื™ื ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื•ื”ืจื™ ื”ื™ื ืชื—ืช ื™ื“ื™ ื”ืจื™ ื”ื™ื ืฉืœื™ ืืœื ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืžืชื—ืช ื™ื“ื• ื•ืžืชื—ืœืงืช ืœื›ืœ ืื—ื™ื• ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื

If one of the priests redeemed the field and when the Jubilee arrived it was in his possession, he may not say: Since it is removed from the possession of the one who redeemed it and given to the priests during the Jubilee Year, and since it is already in my possession, it is mine. Rather, the field is removed from his possession and is divided among all his brethren, the priests.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if one consecrated his ancestral field and his son redeemed it from the Temple treasury, the field returns to the original owner when the Jubilee arrives. By contrast, if another person redeemed it, the field is transferred to the priests during the Jubilee Year. With regard to this matter, the Sages taught a baraita analyzing the verse: โ€œAnd if he will not redeem the field, or if he sold the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed anymore. But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy for the Lord, as a dedicated field; his ancestral possession shall be for the priestโ€ (Leviticus 27:20โ€“21).

ืื ืœื ื™ื’ืืœ ืืช ื”ืฉื“ื” ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื•ืื ืžื›ืจ ืืช ื”ืฉื“ื” ื’ื™ื–ื‘ืจ

The phrase โ€œand if he will not redeem the fieldโ€ is referring to a case where the owner did not redeem it and it remained in the possession of the Temple treasury, and the phrase โ€œor if he sold the fieldโ€ is referring to a situation where the Temple treasurer sold it to another person. The verse indicates that in both of these instances, possession of the field goes to the priests.

ืœืื™ืฉ ืื—ืจ ืœืื—ืจ ื•ืœื ืœื‘ืŸ ืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ืœืื—ืจ ื•ืœื ืœื‘ืŸ ืื• ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ืœืื—ืจ ื•ืœื ืœืื— ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืฉ ื”ืจื™ ืื— ืืžื•ืจ ื”ื ืžื” ืื ื™ ืžืงื™ื™ื ืื—ืจ ื•ืœื ืœื‘ืŸ

The baraita continues: โ€œTo another man,โ€ indicates that the field is transferred to the priests during the Jubilee Year only if it had been sold to another, and not to the son of the one who consecrated it. The baraita asks: Do you say that the verse is referring to another and not to his son? Or perhaps the verse means only that it was sold to another and not to his brother? The baraita rejects this suggestion: When it says: โ€œMan,โ€ the brother is stated, i.e., he is included in the category of a man. How do I realize the meaning of: โ€œAnother manโ€? It must mean: Another, but not his son.

ื•ืžื” ืจืื™ืช ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืืช ื”ื‘ืŸ ื•ืœื”ื•ืฆื™ื ืืช ื”ืื— ืžืจื‘ื” ืื ื™ ื”ื‘ืŸ ืฉื›ืŸ ืงื ืชื—ืช ืื‘ื™ื• ืœื™ืขื™ื“ื” ื•ืœืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™

The baraita asks: And what did you see to include the son in the same category as the father, and to exclude the brother? The baraita answers: I include the son, as he stands in place of his father with regard to designating a Hebrew maidservant as a wife for himself, in a case where the father purchased the Hebrew maidservant and designates her as a wife for his son, which he cannot do for his brother. And he also stands in place of his father with regard to a Hebrew slave, as when one inherits a Hebrew slave from his father, the slave is obligated to serve the son and does not go free, whereas if the deceasedโ€™s brother inherits the servant, he goes free.

ืื“ืจื‘ื” ืžืจื‘ื” ืื ื™ ืืช ื”ืื— ืฉื›ืŸ ืงื ืชื—ืช ืื—ื™ื• ืœื™ื™ื‘ื•ื ื›ืœื•ื ื™ืฉ ื™ื‘ื•ื ืืœื ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื”ื ื™ืฉ ื‘ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื™ื‘ื•ื

The baraita objects: On the contrary, I should include the brother, as he stands in his brotherโ€™s place with regard to levirate marriage, which a son does not. The baraita rejects this suggestion: Is there ever a case of levirate marriage other than a case where there is no son? In a case where there is a son there is no levirate marriage. This indicates that with regard to levirate marriage as well, a son stands in place of the deceased more than a brother of the deceased.

ื•ืชื™ืคื•ืง ืœื™ื” ื“ื”ื›ื ืชืจืชื™ ื•ื”ื›ื ื—ื“ื

The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to answer the question in this way? Let one derive the halakha that the son stands in place of the father, and the brother does not, from the simple fact that here, in support of extending the fatherโ€™s status to the son, there are two justifications, i.e., the halakha of designation of the Hebrew maidservant and the halakha of the Hebrew slave, and there, in support of extending it to the brother, there is only one justification, i.e., the halakha of levirate marriage?

ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ืžื”ืื™ ืคื™ืจื›ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื•ื ื“ื ืคืงื ืœื™ื” ื›ืœื•ื ื™ืฉ ื™ื‘ื•ื ืืœื ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ืŸ

The Gemara responds: That answer is invalid because the halakha that a son, but not a brother, stands in place of his father with regard to a Hebrew slave is not written explicitly in the Torah, but the tanna also derives it from this same refutation, namely: Is there ever a case of levirate marriage other than a case where there is no son. Without this refutation there would not be more justifications in support of extending the fatherโ€™s status to the son rather than to the brother. Accordingly, this last refutation is the basis for the conclusion.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื•ื” ื‘ืช ืžื”ื• ืฉืชืขืžื™ื“ ืฉื“ื” ืœืื‘ื™ื” ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ื™ื‘ื•ื ื‘ืŸ ื•ื‘ืช ื›ื™ ื”ื“ื“ื™ ืคื˜ืจื™ ืžื•ืงืžื” ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ื ื—ืœื” ื‘ืช ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื‘ืŸ ื›ื™ ืื—ืจ ื“ืžื™ื ืœื ืžื•ืงืžื”

ยง Rabba bar Avuh raises a dilemma: If a daughter redeemed the ancestral field that her father consecrated, what is the halakha? Does she thereby preserve possession of the field for her father at the Jubilee Year, like a son? Rabba bar Avuh explains the two sides of the dilemma: Perhaps the halakha is that since with regard to levirate marriage, a son and a daughter are like one another, as both exempt their fatherโ€™s widow from the obligation of levirate marriage, the daughter preserves possession of the field for her father. Or perhaps the halakha is that since with regard to inheritance, when there is a son, a daughter is considered like another person, as she does not inherit a share of her fatherโ€™s estate, she does not preserve possession of the field for her father.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื›ืœ ืฉื”ื•ื ืื—ืจ ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื‘ืŸ ื•ื”ื ื ืžื™ ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื‘ืŸ ื›ื™ ืื—ืจ ื“ืžื™ื

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita that the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Anyone who is considered like another person when there is a son does not preserve possession of the field for the owner. And with regard to this, i.e., a daughter, as well, when there is a son, she is considered like another person.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืืฉื” ืžื™ ืžืขืžื™ื“ ืœื” ืฉื“ื” ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ืงื™ื ืœื” ืฉื›ืŸ ื™ื•ืจืฉื” ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ื‘ืŸ ืžื•ืงื™ื ืœื” ืฉื›ืŸ ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื‘ืจืื•ื™ ื›ื‘ืžื•ื—ื–ืง ืชื™ืงื•

Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: If a woman consecrated her ancestral field, which of her heirs can redeem the field and thereby preserve possession of the field for her during the Jubilee Year? Can her husband preserve it for her, as he inherits from her if she dies during his lifetime? Or perhaps her son can preserve if for her, as if the son inherits from his mother, when she was not married at the time of her death, he takes in inheritance the property due to her as he does the property she possessed? There is a halakha that if someone dies and his heir is a woman who is already deceased, her son inherits that property, not her late husband. No resolution is offered, and therefore the Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืจืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ืžืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉื” ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉืชื™ ืฉื ื™ื ืœืคื ื™ ื”ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ืžื”ื• ืฉืชืฆื ืœื›ื”ื ื™ื

ยง Rami bar แธคama raised a dilemma before Rav แธคisda: If one consecrated his ancestral field less than two years before the Jubilee Year and did not redeem it, what is the halakha with regard to whether or not it is to be removed from his possession during the Jubilee and given to the priests?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืื™ ื“ืขืชื™ืš ื•ื ื’ืจืข ืžืขืจื›ืš ื•ื”ื™ื” ื”ืฉื“ื” ื‘ืฆืืชื• ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื“ื‘ืช ื’ื™ืจืขื•ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื“ืœืื• ื‘ืช ื’ื™ืจืขื•ืŸ ืœื

Rav แธคisda said to him: What is your reasoning? Is it that since the verse states: โ€œAnd a deduction shall be made from your valuationโ€ (Leviticus 27:18), which indicates that the field is redeemed with a deduction according to the years remaining until the Jubilee Year, and the verse also states: โ€œBut the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy for the Lordโ€ฆhis ancestral possession shall be for the priestโ€ (Leviticus 27:21), this indicates that if the field is fit for deduction, then yes, when it is not redeemed by the owner it is given to the priests at the Jubilee Year, but with regard to a field that is not fit for deduction, i.e., one consecrated less than two years before the Jubilee Year, which must be redeemed according to its full valuation (24a), no, it is not given to the priests but rather is returned to the owner?

ืื“ืจื‘ื” ืื ืœื ื™ื’ืืœ ื”ืฉื“ื” ื•ื”ื™ื” ื”ืฉื“ื” ื‘ืฆืืชื• ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื•ื”ืื™ ื ืžื™ ื‘ืช ื’ืื•ืœื” ื”ื™ื

Rav แธคisda responds: On the contrary, the verse states: โ€œAnd if he will not redeem the field, or if he sold the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed anymore. But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy for the Lordโ€ฆhis ancestral possession shall be for the priestโ€ (Leviticus 27:20โ€“21). This indicates that any field that could have been redeemed but was not redeemed becomes the possession of the priests. And this field, which was consecrated less than two years before the Jubilee Year, is also fit for redemption. Therefore, if it was not redeemed it is given to the priests.

ื’ืืœื” ืื—ื“ ืžืŸ ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœื›ื”ืŸ ืชื”ื™ื” ืื—ื–ืชื• ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ

ยง The mishna teaches: If one of the priests redeemed the field and when the Jubilee Year arrived it was in his possession, he may not say: Since it is removed from the possession of the one who redeemed it and given to the priests during the Jubilee Year, and since it is already in my possession, it is mine. Rather, the field is removed from his possession and is divided among all of his brethren, the priests. With regard to this halakha, the Sages taught in a baraita: Why must the verse state: โ€œBut the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy for the Lordโ€ฆhis ancestral possession shall be for the priestโ€ (Leviticus 27:21)?

ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืฉื“ื” ืฉื™ื•ืฆื ืœื›ื”ื ื™ื ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื•ื’ืืœื” ืื—ื“ ืžืŸ ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื™ืืžืจ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ืชื—ืช ื™ื“ื™ ื•ืชื”ื ืฉืœื™ ื•ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื‘ืฉืœ ืื—ืจื™ื ืื ื™ ื–ื•ื›ื” ื‘ืฉืœ ืขืฆืžื™ ืœื ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ

The baraita explains: From where is it derived, with regard to a field that was consecrated and not redeemed by the owner, and therefore was to have been removed from the possession of the owner and given to the priests during the Jubilee Year, and one of the priests redeemed it before the Jubilee, from where is it derived that he may not say: Since it is removed from the possession of the owner and given to the priest at the Jubilee, and since it is already in my possession, it should therefore be mine? And this claim is supported by a logical inference: Since in the Jubilee Year I obtain fields of others that I did not previously redeem, is it not all the more so clear that I should retain my own field that I redeemed from the Temple treasury myself?

ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื—ื–ืชื• ืื—ื•ื–ื” ืฉืœื• ื•ืื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืฉืœื• ื”ื ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื™ื•ืฆื ืžืชื—ืช ื™ื“ื• ื•ืžืชื—ืœืงืช ืœืื—ื™ื• ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื

Therefore, the verse states: โ€œHis ancestral possession,โ€ which can be interpreted to mean that only his ancestral field, i.e., one that the priest inherited from his own ancestors, is automatically his, but this field is not his. How so, i.e., how is this field treated? It is removed from his possession and is divided among all of his brethren, the priests.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื’ื™ืข ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื•ืœื ื ื’ืืœื” ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ืœืชื•ื›ื” ื•ื ื•ืชื ื™ืŸ ืืช ื“ืžื™ื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ื•ืœื ื ื•ืชื ื™ืŸ

MISHNA: If one consecrated his ancestral field and the Jubilee Year arrived and it was not redeemed by the owner or anyone else, the priests enter into the field and give its redemption payment to the Temple treasury; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: They enter into the field, but they do not give its redemption payment to the Temple treasury.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ื•ืœื ื ื•ืชื ื™ืŸ ืืœื ื ืงืจืืช ืฉื“ื” ืจื˜ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืขื“ ื”ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื”ืฉื ื™ ื”ื’ื™ืข ื”ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื”ืฉื ื™ ื•ืœื ื ื’ืืœื” ื ืงืจืืช ืจื˜ื•ืฉื™ ืจื˜ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืขื“ ื”ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื”ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ ืœืขื•ืœื ืื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ืœืชื•ื›ื” ืขื“ ืฉื™ื’ืืœื ื” ืื—ืจ

Rabbi Eliezer says: The priests do not enter into the field, and they also do not give its redemption payment to the Temple treasury. Rather, the field remains in the possession of the Temple treasury, and it is called: An abandoned field, until the second Jubilee Year. If the second Jubilee arrived and it was still not redeemed, it is called: An abandoned field from among the abandoned fields, meaning one that was abandoned twice, until the third Jubilee. In any case, the priests never enter into a consecrated field during the Jubilee Year until another person redeems it first.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื’ืžืจ ืงื“ืฉ ืงื“ืฉ ืžืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ื‘ื™ืช

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehudaโ€™s opinion that the priests who enter into an unredeemed consecrated field during the Jubilee Year must give its redemption payment to the Temple treasury? The Gemara answers: He derives this halakha from a verbal analogy from the word โ€œholyโ€ stated in reference to an ancestral field, and the word โ€œholyโ€ that appears with regard to one who consecrates a house.

ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ื‘ื“ืžื™ื ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ื‘ื“ืžื™ื

The Gemara explains: Just as there, with regard to one who consecrates a house, where the verse states: โ€œAnd when a man shall consecrate his house to be holy for the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 27:14), it can be redeemed from the Temple treasury only by payment of money, as the verse concludes: โ€œAs the priest shall value it, so shall it stand,โ€ so too here, where the verse states with regard to the priests entering into an ancestral field: โ€œBut the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy for the Lordโ€ฆhis ancestral possession shall be for the priestโ€ (Leviticus 27:21), the priests can enter the field only by payment of money.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื’ืžืจ ืงื“ืฉ ืงื“ืฉ ืžื›ื‘ืฉื™ ืขืฆืจืช ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ื‘ื—ื ื ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ื‘ื—ื ื

The Gemara asks: And what is the source for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that the priests are not required to give the redemption payment to the Temple treasury? The Gemara answers: He derives the halakha from the word โ€œholyโ€ used with regard to an ancestral field, and the word โ€œholyโ€ used with regard to the communal peace offering of two lambs that accompanies the two loaves on Shavuot. Just as there, with regard to the offering of two lambs, where the verse states: โ€œThey shall be holy to the Lord for the priestโ€ (Leviticus 23:20), the lambs are given to the priests for free, as is the halakha with regard to all offerings to which members of the priesthood are entitled, so too here, the consecrated and unredeemed ancestral field is given to the priests for free.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ [ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”] ื ืžื™ ื ื™ืœื™ืฃ ืžื›ื‘ืฉื™ ืขืฆืจืช ื“ื ื™ืŸ ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yehuda, let him also derive the halakha by a verbal analogy from the two lambs brought on Shavuot. Why does he disagree with Rabbi Shimon? The Gemara answers: One derives the halakha with regard to items consecrated for Temple maintenance, such as an ancestral field,

Scroll To Top