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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 12, 2019 | 讟壮 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讟

  • 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 26

What happens if the Jubilee year arrives before anyone redeems the field. There are three different opinions and the gemara tries to find the sources for each opinion. If a son purchases his father’s ancestral field, it is considered an ancestral field or a purchased field.


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

诪拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 诪拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞

from that of other items consecrated for Temple maintenance, e.g., a consecrated house, but one does not derive the halakha with regard to items consecrated for Temple maintenance from items that are consecrated for the altar, such as the two lambs brought on Shavuot.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 谞诪讬 谞讬诇祝 诪诪拽讚讬砖 讘讬转 讚谞讬谉 讚讘专 砖诪转谞讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 诪讚讘专 砖诪转谞讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讚讘专 砖诪转谞讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 诪讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪转谞讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐

The Gemara objects: And let Rabbi Shimon also derive the halakha by means of a verbal analogy from one who consecrates a house. Why does he disagree with Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara explains: One derives the halakha of an item that is a gift to the priests, such as an ancestral field that is given to the priests during the Jubilee Year, from that of another item that is a gift to the priests, i.e., the two lambs brought on Shavuot, but one does not derive the halakha of an item that is a gift to the priests from that of an item that is not a gift to the priests, i.e., a consecrated house.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇讗 谞讻谞住讬谉 讜诇讗 谞讜转谞讬谉

搂 The mishna teaches that if one consecrates his ancestral field and it is not redeemed before the Jubilee, Rabbi Eliezer says: The priests do not enter into the field, and they also do not give its redemption payment to the Temple treasury. According to Rabbi Eliezer, the priests do not obtain possession of a consecrated field during the Jubilee Year unless another person redeemed it first.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗诐 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讗转 讛砖讚讛 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 注讜讚 讜讗诐 诪讻专 讗转 讛砖讚讛 讜讛讬讛 讛砖讚讛 讘爪讗转讜 讘讬讜讘诇

Rabba said: What is the reason for Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion? It is because the verse states: 鈥淎nd 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 priest鈥 (Leviticus 27:20鈥21). According to Rabba, Rabbi Eliezer maintains that these verses teach two separate halakhot, and should be read as follows: 鈥淎nd if he will not redeem the field鈥t shall not be redeemed anymore,鈥 as an ancestral field, and: 鈥淥r if he sold the field鈥ut the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee鈥his ancestral possession shall be for the priest.鈥 Accordingly, if the field has not yet been sold to another man, it is not transferred to the priests during the Jubilee.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 住讻讬谞讗 讞专讬驻讗 诪驻住拽讗 拽专讗讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 转讛讗 谞讙讗诇转 砖转讛讗 诇驻谞讬讜 讻砖讚讛 诪拽谞讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注讜讚 诇讻诪讜转 砖讛讬转讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讙讗诇转 讗讘诇 谞讙讗诇转 砖转讛讗 诇驻谞讬讜 讻砖讚讛 诪拽谞讛

Abaye said: Does a sharp knife cut through the verses, that they may be interpreted by reading the words out of order? Rather, Abaye said: The reason for Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion is as it is taught in a baraita: Since the verse states: 鈥淎nd if he will not redeem the field, or if he sold the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed,鈥 one might have thought that this means it shall not be redeemed at all by its owner, even for it to be treated for him like a purchased field, which remains in his possession until the Jubilee. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nymore,鈥 indicating that it shall not be redeemed in order for it to return to the way it was, i.e., to regain the status of an ancestral field, but it may be redeemed for it to be treated for him like a purchased field.

讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讬讜讘诇 专讗砖讜谉 讗诪讗讬 讗讬谞讛 谞讙讗诇转 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 谞诪讬 讛讜讬讗 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讘讬讜讘诇 砖谞讬

Abaye continues: According to this baraita, of when, i.e., about which time period, is the verse speaking? If we say that it is referring to a redemption occurring during the first Jubilee cycle in which the field was consecrated, then why may it not be redeemed in order for it to return to the way it was? At that point, it is even redeemable as an ancestral field, because if the owner redeems it then, it is not removed from his possession during the Jubilee Year. Rather, it is obvious that the baraita interprets the verse as referring to a redemption occurring during the second Jubilee cycle.

讜诇诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讻讛谞讬诐 谞驻拽讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讛讻讗

And according to whose opinion is this baraita? If we say that it is according to either Rabbi Yehuda or Rabbi Shimon, this cannot be correct, as according to them, the field leaves the possession of the Temple treasury and is given to the priests during the first Jubilee Year, after which it may no longer be redeemed. Rather, is it not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who maintains that the field remains in the possession of the Temple treasury until it is redeemed, even during a subsequent Jubilee cycle? And consequently, conclude from this baraita that the reason for Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion is from here, i.e., from the superfluous term 鈥渁nymore.鈥

讜转住讘专讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗讬 注讜讚 诪讗讬 讚专砖讬 讘讬讛 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘砖讚讛 砖讬爪讗讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讜讛拽讚讬砖讛 讻讛谉 讜讗转讜 讘注诇讬诐 诇诪讬驻专拽讛

The Gemara asks: And can you understand the baraita this way? If so, then what do Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon derive from this term: 鈥淎nymore鈥? Rather, the baraita can be understood in accordance with their opinions as well, and what are we dealing with here? We are dealing with an ancestral field whose owner consecrated it and did not redeem it, which left the possession of the Temple treasury and was given to the priests during the first Jubilee Year; and the priest who received the field then consecrated it, and then the original owner came to redeem it from the Temple treasury.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讗 转讬驻专讜拽 砖转讛讗 诇驻谞讬讜 讻砖讚讛 诪拽谞讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注讜讚 诇讻诪讜转 砖讛讬转讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讙讗诇转 讗讘诇 谞讙讗诇转 砖转讛讗 诇驻谞讬讜 讻砖讚讛 诪拽谞讛

It might enter your mind to say: Since the owner failed to redeem this field during the first Jubilee cycle, it shall not be redeemed by him at all, even for it to be treated for him like a purchased field. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nymore,鈥 indicating that it shall not be redeemed in order for it to return to the way it was, i.e., an ancestral field, but it may be redeemed for it to be treated for him like a purchased field, which remains in his possession only until the Jubilee Year.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讘砖谞转 讛讬讜讘诇 讬砖讜讘 讛砖讚讛 诇讗砖专 拽谞讛讜 诪讗转讜 讬讻讜诇 讬讞讝讜专 诇讙讝讘专 砖诇拽讞讜 诪诪谞讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗砖专 诇讜 讗讞讝转 讛讗专抓

And similarly, it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who consecrated a purchased field and redeemed it, since the verse states: 鈥淚n the Jubilee Year the field shall return to the one from whom it was bought鈥 (Leviticus 27:24), one might have thought that the field shall return to the Temple treasurer, from whom he bought it when he redeemed it. Therefore, the verse states immediately afterward: 鈥淭o the one to whom the possession of the land belongs,鈥 i.e., it goes to the ancestral owner who initially sold the field to the one who consecrated it.

讬讗诪专 诇讗砖专 诇讜 讗讞讝转 讛讗专抓 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗砖专 拽谞讛讜 诪讗转讜 砖讚讛 砖讬爪讗转 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪讻专讛 讻讛谉 讜讛拽讚讬砖讛 诇讜拽讞 讜讙讗诇讛 讗讞专 讬讻讜诇 转讞讝讜专 诇讘注诇讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗砖专 拽谞讛讜

The baraita continues: If so, let the verse simply state: 鈥淭o the one to whom the possession of the land belongs.鈥 Why must the verse state first: 鈥淭o the one from whom it was bought鈥? The baraita answers: The verse is referring to an ancestral field whose owner consecrated it and did not redeem it, which left the possession of the Temple treasury and was given to the priests during the Jubilee Year, and the priest who received the field then sold it to another, and the buyer then consecrated it, and another person redeemed it from the Temple treasury. One might have thought that when the next Jubilee arrives, it shall return to the original owner. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淚n the Jubilee Year the field shall return to the one from whom it was bought,鈥 indicating that the field is returned to the priest who sold the field.

讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讜讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇诪讬讻转讘 诇讗砖专 拽谞讛讜

The Gemara notes: And it was necessary for the Torah to write: 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed,鈥 and it was also necessary for it to write: 鈥淭o the one from whom it was bought,鈥 despite the fact both phrases apparently teach the same halakha, i.e., that after a consecrated ancestral field is left unredeemed and given to the priests during the Jubilee Year, it never returns to the original owner.

讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讚诇讗 拽讗 讛讚专讛 讻诇诇 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚拽讗 讛讚专讛 转讬讛讚专 诇诪专讛 拽诪讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗砖专 拽谞讛讜

The Gemara explains: Because if the Merciful One had written only: 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed,鈥 one might have thought that the field does not return to the original owner only in a case where the priest consecrates the field and the original owner redeems it, as an ancestral field that is consecrated by its owner and redeemed by another does not return at all, but is divided among the priests. But here, where the priest sold the field that he received and the field was consecrated by the buyer as a purchased field and subsequently redeemed by another, as the field does return to its owner in the Jubilee Year, perhaps it should return to its original owner, and not the priest. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote: 鈥淭o the one from whom it was bought,鈥 indicating that it returns to the priest.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗砖专 拽谞讛讜 讚诇讗 拽讗 讬讛讘讬 讘注诇讬诐 讚诪讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚拽讗 讬讛讘讬 讚诪讬 转讬拽讜诐 讘讬讚讬讬讛讜 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬讙讗诇

And if the Merciful One had written only: 鈥淭o the one from whom it was bought,鈥 one might have thought that the field does not return to its original owner during the Jubilee Year only in a case where the priest sold it and the buyer consecrated it, as the owner did not give any payment for the field to the Temple treasury. But here, where the priest consecrated the field and its original owner redeemed it, as he gives payment for the field to the Temple treasury, perhaps it should remain in his hands as his ancestral field. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote: 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed.鈥

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讜诇讗 讻转讘 注讜讚 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讗 转讬驻专讜拽 讻诇诇 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 注讜讚 诇讻诪讜转 砖讛讬转讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讙讗诇转 讗讘诇 谞讙讗诇转 砖转讛讗 诇驻谞讬讜 讻砖讚讛 诪拽谞讛

And if the Merciful One had written only: 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed,鈥 and did not write: 鈥淎nymore,鈥 I would say that it shall not be redeemed at all, as its original owner failed to redeem it during the first Jubilee cycle. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淎nymore,鈥 to indicate that it shall not be redeemed in order for it to return to the way it was, i.e., an ancestral field, but it may be redeemed for it to be treated for him like a purchased field.

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讬讛 讛砖讚讛 讘爪讗转讜 讘讬讜讘诇 讘爪讗转讜 诪讬讚 讗讞专

The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached about it? In other words, now that both suggestions have been rejected, what is the reason for Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion that a consecrated ancestral field that has not been redeemed by the Jubilee Year is not given to the priests? Rava said that the verse states: 鈥淏ut 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 priest鈥 (Leviticus 27:21). The term 鈥渨hen it goes out鈥 indicates that it is given to the priests only when it goes out during the Jubilee Year from the possession of another person, who redeemed it from the Temple treasury.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘注诇讬诐 讘讬讜讘诇 砖谞讬 讻讗讞专 讚诪讜 讗讜 诇讗

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to Rabbi Eliezer, if the owner consecrated his ancestral field and failed to redeem it before the first Jubilee Year, but he redeemed it during the second Jubilee cycle, is he considered like another person who redeemed the field, in which case it is given to the priests at the following Jubilee Year, or not, i.e., as the one who ultimately redeemed the field first was the owner, does it remain in his possession as it would have if he had redeemed it during the first Jubilee cycle?

转讗 砖诪注 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 转讛讗 谞讙讗诇转 砖转讛讗 诇驻谞讬讜 讻砖讚讛 诪拽谞讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注讜讚 诇讻诪讜转 砖讛讬转讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讙讗诇转 讗讘诇 谞讙讗诇转 砖转讛讗 诇驻谞讬讜 讻砖讚讛 诪拽谞讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution of this dilemma from the following baraita: Since the verse states: 鈥淎nd if he will not redeem the field, or if he sold the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed鈥 (Leviticus 27:20), one might have thought that this means it shall not be redeemed at all by its owner, even for it to be treated for him like a purchased field. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nymore,鈥 indicating that it shall not be redeemed in order for it to return to the way it was, i.e., an ancestral field, but it may be redeemed for it to be treated for him like a purchased field.

讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讬讜讘诇 专讗砖讜谉 讗诪讗讬 讗讬谞讛 谞讙讗诇转 讗讞讜讝讛 谞诪讬 讛讜讬讗 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讘讬讜讘诇 砖谞讬

The Gemara continues: According to this baraita, of when, i.e., about which time period, is the verse speaking? If we say that it is referring to a redemption that occurs during the first Jubilee cycle, in which the field was consecrated, why may it not be redeemed in order for it to return to the way it was? At that point it is even redeemable as an ancestral field, since if the owner redeems it then, it is not removed from his possession during the Jubilee Year. Rather, it is obvious that the baraita interprets the verse as referring to a redemption occurring during the second Jubilee cycle.

讜诇诪讗谉 讗讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讻讛谞讬诐 谞驻拽讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘注诇讬诐 讘讬讜讘诇 砖谞讬 讻讗讞专 讚诪讜

And according to whose opinion is this baraita? If we say that it is according to either Rabbi Yehuda or Rabbi Shimon, this cannot be correct, as according to them, the field leaves the possession of the Temple treasury and is given to the priests during the first Jubilee Year, after which it may no longer be redeemed. Rather, is it not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who maintains that the field remains in the possession of the Temple treasury until it is redeemed, even during a subsequent Jubilee cycle? And consequently, you can conclude from this baraita that according to Rabbi Eliezer, an owner who redeems his ancestral field from the Temple treasury during the second Jubilee cycle is considered like another, as he may redeem it only for it to be treated like a purchased field.

讜转住讘专讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗讬 注讜讚 诪讗讬 讚专砖讬 讘讬讛 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘砖讚讛 砖讬爪讗讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讜讛拽讚讬砖讛 讻讛谉 讜讗转讜 讘注诇讬诐 诇诪讬驻专拽讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讗 转讬驻专讜拽 砖转讛讗 讻砖讚讛 诪拽谞讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注讜讚 诇讻诪讜转 砖讛讬转讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讙讗诇转 讗讘诇 谞讙讗诇转 砖转讛讗 诇驻谞讬讜 讻砖讚讛 诪拽谞讛

The Gemara asks: And can you understand the baraita this way? If so, what do Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon derive from this term: 鈥淎nymore鈥? Rather, what are we dealing with here? We are dealing with an ancestral field whose owner consecrated it and did not redeem it, which left the possession of the Temple treasury and was given to the priests at the first Jubilee Year; and the priest who received the field subsequently consecrated it, and then the original owner came to redeem it from the Temple treasury. It may enter your mind to say: Since the owner failed to redeem it during the first Jubilee cycle, it shall not be redeemed by him at all, even for it to be treated for him like a purchased field. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nymore,鈥 indicating that it shall not be redeemed in order for it to return to the way it was, i.e., an ancestral field, but it may be redeemed for it to be treated for him like a purchased field.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讬砖讜讘 讛砖讚讛 诇讗砖专 拽谞讛讜 诪讗转讜 讬讻讜诇 讬讞讝讜专 诇讙讝讘专 砖诇拽讞讛 讛讬诪谞讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗砖专 诇讜 讗讞讝转 讛讗专抓

And similarly, it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who consecrated a purchased field and redeemed it, since the verse states: 鈥淚n the Jubilee Year the field shall return to the one from whom it was bought鈥 (Leviticus 27:24), one might have thought that the field shall return to the Temple treasurer, from whom he bought it when he redeemed it. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭o the one to whom the possession of the land belongs,鈥 i.e., the ancestral owner.

诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗砖专 拽谞讛讜 砖讚讛 砖讬爪讗讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪讻专讛 讻讛谉 讜讛拽讚讬砖讛 诇讜拽讞 讜讙讗诇讛 讗讞专 讬讻讜诇 转讞讝讜专 诇讘注诇讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗砖专 拽谞讛讜

The baraita continues: If so, why must the verse state: 鈥淭o the one from whom it was bought鈥? The baraita answers: The verse is referring to an ancestral field that was consecrated and not redeemed, and which therefore left the possession of the Temple treasury and was given to the priests at the Jubilee Year, and the priest who received the field then sold it to another, and the buyer then consecrated it, and another person redeemed it from the Temple treasury. One might have thought that when the next Jubilee arrives, it shall return to the original owner. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淚n the Jubilee Year the field shall return to the one from whom it was bought,鈥 indicating that the field is returned to the priest who sold the field.

讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讬讻转讘 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讬讻转讘 诇讗砖专 拽谞讛讜 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讚诇讗 拽讗 讛讚专讗 讻诇诇 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗砖专 拽谞讛讜

The Gemara notes: And it was necessary for the Torah to write: 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed,鈥 and it was also necessary for it to write: 鈥淭o the one from whom it was bought,鈥 because if the Merciful One had written merely: 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed,鈥 one might have thought that the field does not return to the original owner only in a case where the priest consecrates the field and the original owner redeems it, as an ancestral field that is consecrated by its owner and redeemed by another does not return at all. But in a case where the priest sold the field to another and the buyer consecrated it, perhaps it should return to its original owner. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote: 鈥淭o the one from whom it was bought,鈥 indicating that it returns to the priest.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗砖专 拽谞讛讜 讚诇讗 拽讬讛讘讬 讘注诇讬诐 讚诪讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讬讛讘讬 讘注诇讬诐 讚诪讬 讚转讬拽讜诐 讘讬讚讬讛讜 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬讙讗诇

And if the Merciful One had written merely: 鈥淭o the one from whom it was bought,鈥 one might think that the field does not return to its original owner at the Jubilee Year only in a case where the priest sold it and the buyer consecrated it, as the owner did not give any payment for the field to the Temple treasury. But here, where the priest consecrated the field and its original owner redeemed it, as the owner gives payment for the field to the Temple treasury, one might have thought that it should remain in his hands, as his ancestral field. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote: 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed.鈥

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讜诇讗 讻转讘 注讜讚 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讗 转讬驻专讜拽 讻诇诇 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 注讜讚 诇讻诪讜转 砖讛讬转讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讙讗诇转 讗讘诇 谞讙讗诇转 砖转讛讗 诇驻谞讬讜 讻砖讚讛 诪拽谞讛

And if the Merciful One had written only: 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed,鈥 and did not write: 鈥淎nymore,鈥 I would say that it shall not be redeemed at all, as its original owner failed to redeem it during the first Jubilee cycle. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淎nymore,鈥 to indicate that it shall not be redeemed in order for it to return to the way it was, but it may be redeemed for it to be treated for him like a purchased field.

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讙讗诇讛 讘注诇讬诐 讘讬讜讘诇 砖谞讬 讬讜爪讗讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讘讬讜讘诇

The Gemara asks: Since it has been established that the term 鈥渁nymore鈥 is necessary according to all opinions, what conclusion was reached about the original dilemma with regard to whether the owner is considered like another person during the second Jubilee cycle? The Gemara answers: Come and hear a proof from the following baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: If the owner redeemed it during the second Jubilee cycle, it leaves the possession of the Temple treasury and is given to the priests during the Jubilee Year.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗谞谉 诇讗 转谞谉 讛讻讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 谞讻谞住讬谉 诇转讜讻讛 注讚 砖讬讙讗诇谞讛 讗讞专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注诇讬诐 讘讬讜讘诇 砖谞讬 讻讗讞专 讚诪讜

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: But we did not learn this interpretation of Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion in the mishna. Instead, the mishna states that Rabbi Eliezer says: The priests never enter into a consecrated field during the Jubilee Year until another person redeems it first. This indicates that if the owner, rather than any other person, is the one who ultimately redeems the field, it remains in his possession even if he did so during the second Jubilee cycle. Rav Ashi said to Ravina: During the second Jubilee cycle, the owner is considered like another person.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讙讗诇讛 讘讬讜讘诇 砖谞讬 讗讬谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讘讬讜讘诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 谞讻谞住讬谉 诇转讜讻讛 注讚 砖讬讙讗诇谞讛 讗讞专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘注诇讬诐 讘讬讜讘诇 砖谞讬 讻讗讞专 讚诪讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Some say a different version of the baraita and ensuing discussion: Rabbi Eliezer says: If the owner redeemed it during the second Jubilee cycle, it does not leave the possession of the Temple treasury and is not given to the priests during the Jubilee Year. Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Why must a proof be brought from this baraita? We learn in the mishna as well that Rabbi Eliezer says: The priests never enter into a consecrated field during the Jubilee Year until another person redeems it first. Rav Ashi said to him: If a proof is learned from the mishna alone I would say that during the second Jubilee cycle the owner is considered like another person. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that according to Rabbi Eliezer the owner is not considered like another person, and the field returns to him as an ancestral possession.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诇讜拽讞 砖讚讛 诪讗讘讬讜 讜诪转 讗讘讬讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛拽讚讬砖讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讛拽讚讬砖讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讗讘讬讜 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻砖讚讛 诪拽谞讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

MISHNA: One who purchases an ancestral field from his father, and his father subsequently died and afterward the son consecrated it, its halakhic status is like that of an ancestral field, as he inherited his father鈥檚 ancestral rights prior to the consecration. Consequently, the field鈥檚 redemption price is calculated on the basis of fifty sela per beit kor, and if another redeems it instead of the son, it is given to the priests during the Jubilee Year. But if the son consecrated the field and afterward his father died, its halakhic status is like that of a purchased field, whose redemption price is based on its monetary value, and which will return to the ancestral owner, i.e., the son, at the Jubilee; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 砖谞讗诪专 讗诐 诪砖讚讛 诪拽谞转讜 讗砖专 诇讗 诪砖讚讛 讗讞讝转讜 砖讚讛 砖讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讛讬讜转 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讬爪转讛 讝讜 砖讛讬讗 专讗讜讬讛 诇讛讬讜转 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon say: Even in a case where the son consecrated the field before his father died, its halakhic status is like that of an ancestral field, as it is stated with regard to a purchased field: 鈥淎nd if he will consecrate unto the Lord a field that he has bought, which is not of his ancestral field鈥 (Leviticus 27:22), indicating that this halakha applies only to a field that is not due to become his ancestral field, thereby excluding this field, which at the time of consecration is due to become his ancestral field in the future, when his father dies.

砖讚讛 诪拽谞讛 讗讬谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讘讬讜讘诇 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪拽讚讬砖 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讜讛诇讜讬诐 诪拽讚讬砖讬谉 诇注讜诇诐 讜讙讜讗诇讬谉 诇注讜诇诐 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讛讬讜讘诇 讘讬谉 诇讗讞专 讛讬讜讘诇

The mishna continues: A purchased field that was consecrated is not removed from the possession of the Temple treasury and given to the priests during the Jubilee Year, as the purchase of the land was valid only until the Jubilee, at which point fields return to their ancestral owners, and a person cannot consecrate an item that is not his. The priests and the Levites may always consecrate their ancestral fields and may always redeem their ancestral fields, both before the Jubilee Year and after the Jubilee Year.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪谞讬谉 诇诇讜拽讞 砖讚讛 诪讗讘讬讜 讜讛拽讚讬砖讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讗讘讬讜 诪谞讬谉 砖转讛讗 诇驻谞讬讜 讻砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗诐 诪砖讚讛 诪拽谞转讜 讗砖专 诇讗 诪砖讚讛 讗讞讝转讜 砖讚讛 砖讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讛讬讜转 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讬爪转讛 讝讜 砖专讗讜讬讛 诇讛讬讜转 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that one who purchases an ancestral field from his father and consecrated it, and afterward his father died, from where is it derived that it shall be treated for him like an ancestral field? The verse states: 鈥淎nd if he will consecrate unto the Lord a field that he has bought, which is not of his ancestral field鈥 (Leviticus 27:22), indicating that this halakha applies only to a field that is not due to become his ancestral field, thereby excluding this field that he purchased from his father, which at the time of consecration is due to become his ancestral field; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇诇讜拽讞 砖讚讛 诪讗讘讬讜 讜诪转 讗讘讬讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛拽讚讬砖讛 诪谞讬谉 砖转讛讗 诇驻谞讬讜 讻砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗诐 诪砖讚讛 诪拽谞转讜 讗砖专 诇讗 诪砖讚讛 讗讞讝转讜 砖讚讛 砖讗讬谞讛 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讬爪讗转 讝讜 砖讛讬讗 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛

Rabbi Meir says: From where is it derived with regard to one who purchases an ancestral field from his father, and his father died and afterward he consecrated the field, from where is it derived that it shall be treated for him like an ancestral field? The verse states: 鈥淎nd if he will consecrate unto the Lord a field that he has bought, which is not of his ancestral field.鈥 This teaches that a field that is not an ancestral field at the time of consecration is deemed a purchased field, thereby excluding this field, which is at this point an ancestral field. But according to Rabbi Meir, a field that at the time of consecration is merely due to become an ancestral field in the future is deemed a purchased field.

诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 拽谞讬谉 驻讬专讜转 讻拽谞讬谉 讛讙讜祝 讚诪讬

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about this: That Rabbi Meir, who requires a derivation from the verse to teach the halakha that if the son consecrates the field after his father鈥檚 death it is not treated as a purchased field, holds that acquisition of an item for its produce is tantamount to acquisition of the item itself. Accordingly, as the son owned the plot as a purchased field prior to his father鈥檚 death, his ownership remained unchanged when his father died. Therefore, the verse is required to teach that upon the father鈥檚 death the field鈥檚 status changes to that of an ancestral field.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专讬 拽谞讬谉 驻讬专讜转 诇讗讜 讻拽谞讬谉 讛讙讜祝 讚诪讬

In contrast, let us say that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon hold that acquisition of an item for its produce is not tantamount to acquisition of the item itself. Accordingly, his ownership of the field became absolute only upon his father鈥檚 death. Consequently, there is no need for a derivation from the verse for such a case, and the derivation is therefore applied to the case where the son consecrated the field before his father鈥檚 death.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讘注诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽谞讬谉 驻讬专讜转 讻拽谞讬谉 讛讙讜祝 讚诪讬

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: In general, according to Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda, acquisition of an item for its produce is tantamount to acquisition of the item itself. Consequently, they also require the derivation from the verse to teach that if the father died before the son consecrated the field, it is treated as an ancestral field and not as a purchased field.

  • 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 26

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Arakhin 26

诪拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 诪拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞

from that of other items consecrated for Temple maintenance, e.g., a consecrated house, but one does not derive the halakha with regard to items consecrated for Temple maintenance from items that are consecrated for the altar, such as the two lambs brought on Shavuot.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 谞诪讬 谞讬诇祝 诪诪拽讚讬砖 讘讬转 讚谞讬谉 讚讘专 砖诪转谞讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 诪讚讘专 砖诪转谞讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讚讘专 砖诪转谞讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 诪讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪转谞讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐

The Gemara objects: And let Rabbi Shimon also derive the halakha by means of a verbal analogy from one who consecrates a house. Why does he disagree with Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara explains: One derives the halakha of an item that is a gift to the priests, such as an ancestral field that is given to the priests during the Jubilee Year, from that of another item that is a gift to the priests, i.e., the two lambs brought on Shavuot, but one does not derive the halakha of an item that is a gift to the priests from that of an item that is not a gift to the priests, i.e., a consecrated house.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇讗 谞讻谞住讬谉 讜诇讗 谞讜转谞讬谉

搂 The mishna teaches that if one consecrates his ancestral field and it is not redeemed before the Jubilee, Rabbi Eliezer says: The priests do not enter into the field, and they also do not give its redemption payment to the Temple treasury. According to Rabbi Eliezer, the priests do not obtain possession of a consecrated field during the Jubilee Year unless another person redeemed it first.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗诐 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讗转 讛砖讚讛 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 注讜讚 讜讗诐 诪讻专 讗转 讛砖讚讛 讜讛讬讛 讛砖讚讛 讘爪讗转讜 讘讬讜讘诇

Rabba said: What is the reason for Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion? It is because the verse states: 鈥淎nd 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 priest鈥 (Leviticus 27:20鈥21). According to Rabba, Rabbi Eliezer maintains that these verses teach two separate halakhot, and should be read as follows: 鈥淎nd if he will not redeem the field鈥t shall not be redeemed anymore,鈥 as an ancestral field, and: 鈥淥r if he sold the field鈥ut the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee鈥his ancestral possession shall be for the priest.鈥 Accordingly, if the field has not yet been sold to another man, it is not transferred to the priests during the Jubilee.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 住讻讬谞讗 讞专讬驻讗 诪驻住拽讗 拽专讗讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 转讛讗 谞讙讗诇转 砖转讛讗 诇驻谞讬讜 讻砖讚讛 诪拽谞讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注讜讚 诇讻诪讜转 砖讛讬转讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讙讗诇转 讗讘诇 谞讙讗诇转 砖转讛讗 诇驻谞讬讜 讻砖讚讛 诪拽谞讛

Abaye said: Does a sharp knife cut through the verses, that they may be interpreted by reading the words out of order? Rather, Abaye said: The reason for Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion is as it is taught in a baraita: Since the verse states: 鈥淎nd if he will not redeem the field, or if he sold the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed,鈥 one might have thought that this means it shall not be redeemed at all by its owner, even for it to be treated for him like a purchased field, which remains in his possession until the Jubilee. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nymore,鈥 indicating that it shall not be redeemed in order for it to return to the way it was, i.e., to regain the status of an ancestral field, but it may be redeemed for it to be treated for him like a purchased field.

讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讬讜讘诇 专讗砖讜谉 讗诪讗讬 讗讬谞讛 谞讙讗诇转 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 谞诪讬 讛讜讬讗 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讘讬讜讘诇 砖谞讬

Abaye continues: According to this baraita, of when, i.e., about which time period, is the verse speaking? If we say that it is referring to a redemption occurring during the first Jubilee cycle in which the field was consecrated, then why may it not be redeemed in order for it to return to the way it was? At that point, it is even redeemable as an ancestral field, because if the owner redeems it then, it is not removed from his possession during the Jubilee Year. Rather, it is obvious that the baraita interprets the verse as referring to a redemption occurring during the second Jubilee cycle.

讜诇诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讻讛谞讬诐 谞驻拽讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讛讻讗

And according to whose opinion is this baraita? If we say that it is according to either Rabbi Yehuda or Rabbi Shimon, this cannot be correct, as according to them, the field leaves the possession of the Temple treasury and is given to the priests during the first Jubilee Year, after which it may no longer be redeemed. Rather, is it not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who maintains that the field remains in the possession of the Temple treasury until it is redeemed, even during a subsequent Jubilee cycle? And consequently, conclude from this baraita that the reason for Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion is from here, i.e., from the superfluous term 鈥渁nymore.鈥

讜转住讘专讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗讬 注讜讚 诪讗讬 讚专砖讬 讘讬讛 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘砖讚讛 砖讬爪讗讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讜讛拽讚讬砖讛 讻讛谉 讜讗转讜 讘注诇讬诐 诇诪讬驻专拽讛

The Gemara asks: And can you understand the baraita this way? If so, then what do Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon derive from this term: 鈥淎nymore鈥? Rather, the baraita can be understood in accordance with their opinions as well, and what are we dealing with here? We are dealing with an ancestral field whose owner consecrated it and did not redeem it, which left the possession of the Temple treasury and was given to the priests during the first Jubilee Year; and the priest who received the field then consecrated it, and then the original owner came to redeem it from the Temple treasury.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讗 转讬驻专讜拽 砖转讛讗 诇驻谞讬讜 讻砖讚讛 诪拽谞讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注讜讚 诇讻诪讜转 砖讛讬转讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讙讗诇转 讗讘诇 谞讙讗诇转 砖转讛讗 诇驻谞讬讜 讻砖讚讛 诪拽谞讛

It might enter your mind to say: Since the owner failed to redeem this field during the first Jubilee cycle, it shall not be redeemed by him at all, even for it to be treated for him like a purchased field. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nymore,鈥 indicating that it shall not be redeemed in order for it to return to the way it was, i.e., an ancestral field, but it may be redeemed for it to be treated for him like a purchased field, which remains in his possession only until the Jubilee Year.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讘砖谞转 讛讬讜讘诇 讬砖讜讘 讛砖讚讛 诇讗砖专 拽谞讛讜 诪讗转讜 讬讻讜诇 讬讞讝讜专 诇讙讝讘专 砖诇拽讞讜 诪诪谞讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗砖专 诇讜 讗讞讝转 讛讗专抓

And similarly, it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who consecrated a purchased field and redeemed it, since the verse states: 鈥淚n the Jubilee Year the field shall return to the one from whom it was bought鈥 (Leviticus 27:24), one might have thought that the field shall return to the Temple treasurer, from whom he bought it when he redeemed it. Therefore, the verse states immediately afterward: 鈥淭o the one to whom the possession of the land belongs,鈥 i.e., it goes to the ancestral owner who initially sold the field to the one who consecrated it.

讬讗诪专 诇讗砖专 诇讜 讗讞讝转 讛讗专抓 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗砖专 拽谞讛讜 诪讗转讜 砖讚讛 砖讬爪讗转 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪讻专讛 讻讛谉 讜讛拽讚讬砖讛 诇讜拽讞 讜讙讗诇讛 讗讞专 讬讻讜诇 转讞讝讜专 诇讘注诇讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗砖专 拽谞讛讜

The baraita continues: If so, let the verse simply state: 鈥淭o the one to whom the possession of the land belongs.鈥 Why must the verse state first: 鈥淭o the one from whom it was bought鈥? The baraita answers: The verse is referring to an ancestral field whose owner consecrated it and did not redeem it, which left the possession of the Temple treasury and was given to the priests during the Jubilee Year, and the priest who received the field then sold it to another, and the buyer then consecrated it, and another person redeemed it from the Temple treasury. One might have thought that when the next Jubilee arrives, it shall return to the original owner. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淚n the Jubilee Year the field shall return to the one from whom it was bought,鈥 indicating that the field is returned to the priest who sold the field.

讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讜讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇诪讬讻转讘 诇讗砖专 拽谞讛讜

The Gemara notes: And it was necessary for the Torah to write: 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed,鈥 and it was also necessary for it to write: 鈥淭o the one from whom it was bought,鈥 despite the fact both phrases apparently teach the same halakha, i.e., that after a consecrated ancestral field is left unredeemed and given to the priests during the Jubilee Year, it never returns to the original owner.

讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讚诇讗 拽讗 讛讚专讛 讻诇诇 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚拽讗 讛讚专讛 转讬讛讚专 诇诪专讛 拽诪讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗砖专 拽谞讛讜

The Gemara explains: Because if the Merciful One had written only: 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed,鈥 one might have thought that the field does not return to the original owner only in a case where the priest consecrates the field and the original owner redeems it, as an ancestral field that is consecrated by its owner and redeemed by another does not return at all, but is divided among the priests. But here, where the priest sold the field that he received and the field was consecrated by the buyer as a purchased field and subsequently redeemed by another, as the field does return to its owner in the Jubilee Year, perhaps it should return to its original owner, and not the priest. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote: 鈥淭o the one from whom it was bought,鈥 indicating that it returns to the priest.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗砖专 拽谞讛讜 讚诇讗 拽讗 讬讛讘讬 讘注诇讬诐 讚诪讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚拽讗 讬讛讘讬 讚诪讬 转讬拽讜诐 讘讬讚讬讬讛讜 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬讙讗诇

And if the Merciful One had written only: 鈥淭o the one from whom it was bought,鈥 one might have thought that the field does not return to its original owner during the Jubilee Year only in a case where the priest sold it and the buyer consecrated it, as the owner did not give any payment for the field to the Temple treasury. But here, where the priest consecrated the field and its original owner redeemed it, as he gives payment for the field to the Temple treasury, perhaps it should remain in his hands as his ancestral field. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote: 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed.鈥

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讜诇讗 讻转讘 注讜讚 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讗 转讬驻专讜拽 讻诇诇 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 注讜讚 诇讻诪讜转 砖讛讬转讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讙讗诇转 讗讘诇 谞讙讗诇转 砖转讛讗 诇驻谞讬讜 讻砖讚讛 诪拽谞讛

And if the Merciful One had written only: 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed,鈥 and did not write: 鈥淎nymore,鈥 I would say that it shall not be redeemed at all, as its original owner failed to redeem it during the first Jubilee cycle. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淎nymore,鈥 to indicate that it shall not be redeemed in order for it to return to the way it was, i.e., an ancestral field, but it may be redeemed for it to be treated for him like a purchased field.

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讬讛 讛砖讚讛 讘爪讗转讜 讘讬讜讘诇 讘爪讗转讜 诪讬讚 讗讞专

The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached about it? In other words, now that both suggestions have been rejected, what is the reason for Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion that a consecrated ancestral field that has not been redeemed by the Jubilee Year is not given to the priests? Rava said that the verse states: 鈥淏ut 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 priest鈥 (Leviticus 27:21). The term 鈥渨hen it goes out鈥 indicates that it is given to the priests only when it goes out during the Jubilee Year from the possession of another person, who redeemed it from the Temple treasury.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘注诇讬诐 讘讬讜讘诇 砖谞讬 讻讗讞专 讚诪讜 讗讜 诇讗

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to Rabbi Eliezer, if the owner consecrated his ancestral field and failed to redeem it before the first Jubilee Year, but he redeemed it during the second Jubilee cycle, is he considered like another person who redeemed the field, in which case it is given to the priests at the following Jubilee Year, or not, i.e., as the one who ultimately redeemed the field first was the owner, does it remain in his possession as it would have if he had redeemed it during the first Jubilee cycle?

转讗 砖诪注 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 转讛讗 谞讙讗诇转 砖转讛讗 诇驻谞讬讜 讻砖讚讛 诪拽谞讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注讜讚 诇讻诪讜转 砖讛讬转讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讙讗诇转 讗讘诇 谞讙讗诇转 砖转讛讗 诇驻谞讬讜 讻砖讚讛 诪拽谞讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution of this dilemma from the following baraita: Since the verse states: 鈥淎nd if he will not redeem the field, or if he sold the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed鈥 (Leviticus 27:20), one might have thought that this means it shall not be redeemed at all by its owner, even for it to be treated for him like a purchased field. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nymore,鈥 indicating that it shall not be redeemed in order for it to return to the way it was, i.e., an ancestral field, but it may be redeemed for it to be treated for him like a purchased field.

讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讬讜讘诇 专讗砖讜谉 讗诪讗讬 讗讬谞讛 谞讙讗诇转 讗讞讜讝讛 谞诪讬 讛讜讬讗 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讘讬讜讘诇 砖谞讬

The Gemara continues: According to this baraita, of when, i.e., about which time period, is the verse speaking? If we say that it is referring to a redemption that occurs during the first Jubilee cycle, in which the field was consecrated, why may it not be redeemed in order for it to return to the way it was? At that point it is even redeemable as an ancestral field, since if the owner redeems it then, it is not removed from his possession during the Jubilee Year. Rather, it is obvious that the baraita interprets the verse as referring to a redemption occurring during the second Jubilee cycle.

讜诇诪讗谉 讗讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讻讛谞讬诐 谞驻拽讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘注诇讬诐 讘讬讜讘诇 砖谞讬 讻讗讞专 讚诪讜

And according to whose opinion is this baraita? If we say that it is according to either Rabbi Yehuda or Rabbi Shimon, this cannot be correct, as according to them, the field leaves the possession of the Temple treasury and is given to the priests during the first Jubilee Year, after which it may no longer be redeemed. Rather, is it not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who maintains that the field remains in the possession of the Temple treasury until it is redeemed, even during a subsequent Jubilee cycle? And consequently, you can conclude from this baraita that according to Rabbi Eliezer, an owner who redeems his ancestral field from the Temple treasury during the second Jubilee cycle is considered like another, as he may redeem it only for it to be treated like a purchased field.

讜转住讘专讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗讬 注讜讚 诪讗讬 讚专砖讬 讘讬讛 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘砖讚讛 砖讬爪讗讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讜讛拽讚讬砖讛 讻讛谉 讜讗转讜 讘注诇讬诐 诇诪讬驻专拽讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讗 转讬驻专讜拽 砖转讛讗 讻砖讚讛 诪拽谞讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注讜讚 诇讻诪讜转 砖讛讬转讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讙讗诇转 讗讘诇 谞讙讗诇转 砖转讛讗 诇驻谞讬讜 讻砖讚讛 诪拽谞讛

The Gemara asks: And can you understand the baraita this way? If so, what do Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon derive from this term: 鈥淎nymore鈥? Rather, what are we dealing with here? We are dealing with an ancestral field whose owner consecrated it and did not redeem it, which left the possession of the Temple treasury and was given to the priests at the first Jubilee Year; and the priest who received the field subsequently consecrated it, and then the original owner came to redeem it from the Temple treasury. It may enter your mind to say: Since the owner failed to redeem it during the first Jubilee cycle, it shall not be redeemed by him at all, even for it to be treated for him like a purchased field. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nymore,鈥 indicating that it shall not be redeemed in order for it to return to the way it was, i.e., an ancestral field, but it may be redeemed for it to be treated for him like a purchased field.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讬砖讜讘 讛砖讚讛 诇讗砖专 拽谞讛讜 诪讗转讜 讬讻讜诇 讬讞讝讜专 诇讙讝讘专 砖诇拽讞讛 讛讬诪谞讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗砖专 诇讜 讗讞讝转 讛讗专抓

And similarly, it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who consecrated a purchased field and redeemed it, since the verse states: 鈥淚n the Jubilee Year the field shall return to the one from whom it was bought鈥 (Leviticus 27:24), one might have thought that the field shall return to the Temple treasurer, from whom he bought it when he redeemed it. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭o the one to whom the possession of the land belongs,鈥 i.e., the ancestral owner.

诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗砖专 拽谞讛讜 砖讚讛 砖讬爪讗讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪讻专讛 讻讛谉 讜讛拽讚讬砖讛 诇讜拽讞 讜讙讗诇讛 讗讞专 讬讻讜诇 转讞讝讜专 诇讘注诇讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗砖专 拽谞讛讜

The baraita continues: If so, why must the verse state: 鈥淭o the one from whom it was bought鈥? The baraita answers: The verse is referring to an ancestral field that was consecrated and not redeemed, and which therefore left the possession of the Temple treasury and was given to the priests at the Jubilee Year, and the priest who received the field then sold it to another, and the buyer then consecrated it, and another person redeemed it from the Temple treasury. One might have thought that when the next Jubilee arrives, it shall return to the original owner. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淚n the Jubilee Year the field shall return to the one from whom it was bought,鈥 indicating that the field is returned to the priest who sold the field.

讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讬讻转讘 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讬讻转讘 诇讗砖专 拽谞讛讜 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讚诇讗 拽讗 讛讚专讗 讻诇诇 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗砖专 拽谞讛讜

The Gemara notes: And it was necessary for the Torah to write: 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed,鈥 and it was also necessary for it to write: 鈥淭o the one from whom it was bought,鈥 because if the Merciful One had written merely: 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed,鈥 one might have thought that the field does not return to the original owner only in a case where the priest consecrates the field and the original owner redeems it, as an ancestral field that is consecrated by its owner and redeemed by another does not return at all. But in a case where the priest sold the field to another and the buyer consecrated it, perhaps it should return to its original owner. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote: 鈥淭o the one from whom it was bought,鈥 indicating that it returns to the priest.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗砖专 拽谞讛讜 讚诇讗 拽讬讛讘讬 讘注诇讬诐 讚诪讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讬讛讘讬 讘注诇讬诐 讚诪讬 讚转讬拽讜诐 讘讬讚讬讛讜 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬讙讗诇

And if the Merciful One had written merely: 鈥淭o the one from whom it was bought,鈥 one might think that the field does not return to its original owner at the Jubilee Year only in a case where the priest sold it and the buyer consecrated it, as the owner did not give any payment for the field to the Temple treasury. But here, where the priest consecrated the field and its original owner redeemed it, as the owner gives payment for the field to the Temple treasury, one might have thought that it should remain in his hands, as his ancestral field. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote: 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed.鈥

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讜诇讗 讻转讘 注讜讚 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讗 转讬驻专讜拽 讻诇诇 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 注讜讚 诇讻诪讜转 砖讛讬转讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讙讗诇转 讗讘诇 谞讙讗诇转 砖转讛讗 诇驻谞讬讜 讻砖讚讛 诪拽谞讛

And if the Merciful One had written only: 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed,鈥 and did not write: 鈥淎nymore,鈥 I would say that it shall not be redeemed at all, as its original owner failed to redeem it during the first Jubilee cycle. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淎nymore,鈥 to indicate that it shall not be redeemed in order for it to return to the way it was, but it may be redeemed for it to be treated for him like a purchased field.

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讙讗诇讛 讘注诇讬诐 讘讬讜讘诇 砖谞讬 讬讜爪讗讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讘讬讜讘诇

The Gemara asks: Since it has been established that the term 鈥渁nymore鈥 is necessary according to all opinions, what conclusion was reached about the original dilemma with regard to whether the owner is considered like another person during the second Jubilee cycle? The Gemara answers: Come and hear a proof from the following baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: If the owner redeemed it during the second Jubilee cycle, it leaves the possession of the Temple treasury and is given to the priests during the Jubilee Year.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗谞谉 诇讗 转谞谉 讛讻讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 谞讻谞住讬谉 诇转讜讻讛 注讚 砖讬讙讗诇谞讛 讗讞专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注诇讬诐 讘讬讜讘诇 砖谞讬 讻讗讞专 讚诪讜

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: But we did not learn this interpretation of Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion in the mishna. Instead, the mishna states that Rabbi Eliezer says: The priests never enter into a consecrated field during the Jubilee Year until another person redeems it first. This indicates that if the owner, rather than any other person, is the one who ultimately redeems the field, it remains in his possession even if he did so during the second Jubilee cycle. Rav Ashi said to Ravina: During the second Jubilee cycle, the owner is considered like another person.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讙讗诇讛 讘讬讜讘诇 砖谞讬 讗讬谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讘讬讜讘诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 谞讻谞住讬谉 诇转讜讻讛 注讚 砖讬讙讗诇谞讛 讗讞专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘注诇讬诐 讘讬讜讘诇 砖谞讬 讻讗讞专 讚诪讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Some say a different version of the baraita and ensuing discussion: Rabbi Eliezer says: If the owner redeemed it during the second Jubilee cycle, it does not leave the possession of the Temple treasury and is not given to the priests during the Jubilee Year. Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Why must a proof be brought from this baraita? We learn in the mishna as well that Rabbi Eliezer says: The priests never enter into a consecrated field during the Jubilee Year until another person redeems it first. Rav Ashi said to him: If a proof is learned from the mishna alone I would say that during the second Jubilee cycle the owner is considered like another person. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that according to Rabbi Eliezer the owner is not considered like another person, and the field returns to him as an ancestral possession.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诇讜拽讞 砖讚讛 诪讗讘讬讜 讜诪转 讗讘讬讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛拽讚讬砖讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讛拽讚讬砖讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讗讘讬讜 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻砖讚讛 诪拽谞讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

MISHNA: One who purchases an ancestral field from his father, and his father subsequently died and afterward the son consecrated it, its halakhic status is like that of an ancestral field, as he inherited his father鈥檚 ancestral rights prior to the consecration. Consequently, the field鈥檚 redemption price is calculated on the basis of fifty sela per beit kor, and if another redeems it instead of the son, it is given to the priests during the Jubilee Year. But if the son consecrated the field and afterward his father died, its halakhic status is like that of a purchased field, whose redemption price is based on its monetary value, and which will return to the ancestral owner, i.e., the son, at the Jubilee; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 砖谞讗诪专 讗诐 诪砖讚讛 诪拽谞转讜 讗砖专 诇讗 诪砖讚讛 讗讞讝转讜 砖讚讛 砖讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讛讬讜转 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讬爪转讛 讝讜 砖讛讬讗 专讗讜讬讛 诇讛讬讜转 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon say: Even in a case where the son consecrated the field before his father died, its halakhic status is like that of an ancestral field, as it is stated with regard to a purchased field: 鈥淎nd if he will consecrate unto the Lord a field that he has bought, which is not of his ancestral field鈥 (Leviticus 27:22), indicating that this halakha applies only to a field that is not due to become his ancestral field, thereby excluding this field, which at the time of consecration is due to become his ancestral field in the future, when his father dies.

砖讚讛 诪拽谞讛 讗讬谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讘讬讜讘诇 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪拽讚讬砖 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讜讛诇讜讬诐 诪拽讚讬砖讬谉 诇注讜诇诐 讜讙讜讗诇讬谉 诇注讜诇诐 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讛讬讜讘诇 讘讬谉 诇讗讞专 讛讬讜讘诇

The mishna continues: A purchased field that was consecrated is not removed from the possession of the Temple treasury and given to the priests during the Jubilee Year, as the purchase of the land was valid only until the Jubilee, at which point fields return to their ancestral owners, and a person cannot consecrate an item that is not his. The priests and the Levites may always consecrate their ancestral fields and may always redeem their ancestral fields, both before the Jubilee Year and after the Jubilee Year.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪谞讬谉 诇诇讜拽讞 砖讚讛 诪讗讘讬讜 讜讛拽讚讬砖讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讗讘讬讜 诪谞讬谉 砖转讛讗 诇驻谞讬讜 讻砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗诐 诪砖讚讛 诪拽谞转讜 讗砖专 诇讗 诪砖讚讛 讗讞讝转讜 砖讚讛 砖讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讛讬讜转 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讬爪转讛 讝讜 砖专讗讜讬讛 诇讛讬讜转 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that one who purchases an ancestral field from his father and consecrated it, and afterward his father died, from where is it derived that it shall be treated for him like an ancestral field? The verse states: 鈥淎nd if he will consecrate unto the Lord a field that he has bought, which is not of his ancestral field鈥 (Leviticus 27:22), indicating that this halakha applies only to a field that is not due to become his ancestral field, thereby excluding this field that he purchased from his father, which at the time of consecration is due to become his ancestral field; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇诇讜拽讞 砖讚讛 诪讗讘讬讜 讜诪转 讗讘讬讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛拽讚讬砖讛 诪谞讬谉 砖转讛讗 诇驻谞讬讜 讻砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗诐 诪砖讚讛 诪拽谞转讜 讗砖专 诇讗 诪砖讚讛 讗讞讝转讜 砖讚讛 砖讗讬谞讛 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讬爪讗转 讝讜 砖讛讬讗 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛

Rabbi Meir says: From where is it derived with regard to one who purchases an ancestral field from his father, and his father died and afterward he consecrated the field, from where is it derived that it shall be treated for him like an ancestral field? The verse states: 鈥淎nd if he will consecrate unto the Lord a field that he has bought, which is not of his ancestral field.鈥 This teaches that a field that is not an ancestral field at the time of consecration is deemed a purchased field, thereby excluding this field, which is at this point an ancestral field. But according to Rabbi Meir, a field that at the time of consecration is merely due to become an ancestral field in the future is deemed a purchased field.

诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 拽谞讬谉 驻讬专讜转 讻拽谞讬谉 讛讙讜祝 讚诪讬

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about this: That Rabbi Meir, who requires a derivation from the verse to teach the halakha that if the son consecrates the field after his father鈥檚 death it is not treated as a purchased field, holds that acquisition of an item for its produce is tantamount to acquisition of the item itself. Accordingly, as the son owned the plot as a purchased field prior to his father鈥檚 death, his ownership remained unchanged when his father died. Therefore, the verse is required to teach that upon the father鈥檚 death the field鈥檚 status changes to that of an ancestral field.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专讬 拽谞讬谉 驻讬专讜转 诇讗讜 讻拽谞讬谉 讛讙讜祝 讚诪讬

In contrast, let us say that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon hold that acquisition of an item for its produce is not tantamount to acquisition of the item itself. Accordingly, his ownership of the field became absolute only upon his father鈥檚 death. Consequently, there is no need for a derivation from the verse for such a case, and the derivation is therefore applied to the case where the son consecrated the field before his father鈥檚 death.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讘注诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽谞讬谉 驻讬专讜转 讻拽谞讬谉 讛讙讜祝 讚诪讬

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: In general, according to Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda, acquisition of an item for its produce is tantamount to acquisition of the item itself. Consequently, they also require the derivation from the verse to teach that if the father died before the son consecrated the field, it is treated as an ancestral field and not as a purchased field.

Scroll To Top