ערכין כה

ערכין כה

בְּאֶמְצַע יוֹבֵל, דְּכֹל כַּמָּה דְּלָא מָלְיָא לֵיהּ שָׁנָה לָא מְגָרַע לֵיהּ.

It is referring to any year in the middle of the Jubilee cycle. The mishna’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.

מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּאֵין מְחַשְּׁבִין חֳדָשִׁים עִם הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ? הָא בְּהֶדְיָא קָתָנֵי: ״אֵין מְחַשְּׁבִין חֳדָשִׁים עִם הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ!״ מָה טַעַם קָאָמַר: מָה טַעַם לֹא גּוֹאֲלִין לְאַחַר יוֹבֵל פָּחוֹת מִשָּׁנָה — מִשּׁוּם דְּאֵין מְחַשְּׁבִין חֳדָשִׁים עִם הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ.

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.

אֵין מְחַשְּׁבִין חֳדָשִׁים וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין מְחַשְּׁבִין חֳדָשִׁים עִם הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְחִשַּׁב לוֹ הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֶּסֶף עַל פִּי הַשָּׁנִים הַנּוֹתָרוֹת״ — שָׁנִים אַתָּה מְחַשֵּׁב, וְאִי אַתָּה מְחַשֵּׁב חֳדָשִׁים.

§ 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: “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 valuation” (Leviticus 27:18). This teaches that you are to calculate years, but you are not to count months.

מִנַּיִין שֶׁאִם אַתָּה רוֹצֶה לַעֲשׂוֹת חֳדָשִׁים לַשָּׁנָה עוֹשֶׂה? הֵיכִי דָּמֵי — כְּגוֹן דְּאַקְדְּשֵׁיהּ בְּפַלְגָא דְּאַרְבְּעִין וְתַמְנֵי.

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.

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְחִשַּׁב לוֹ הַכֹּהֵן״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

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

מַתְנִי׳ הַמַּקְדִּישׁ שָׂדֵהוּ בִּשְׁעַת הַיּוֹבֵל, נוֹתֵן בְּזֶרַע חוֹמֶר שְׂעוֹרִים ״חֲמִשִּׁים שֶׁקֶל כָּסֶף״. הָיוּ שָׁם נְקָעִים עֲמוּקִּים עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים, אוֹ סְלָעִים גְּבוֹהִים עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים — אֵינָן נִמְדָּדִין עִמָּהּ, פָּחוֹת מִכָּאן — נִמְדָּדִין עִמָּהּ.

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 ḥomer, a measure known in talmudic terminology as one kor, of barley seed (see Leviticus 27:16). If there were crevices [neka’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.

הִקְדִּישָׁהּ שְׁתַּיִם וְשָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים לִפְנֵי הַיּוֹבֵל — נוֹתֵן סֶלַע וּפוּנְדְּיוֹן לְשָׁנָה, וְאִם אָמַר: ״הֲרֵינִי נוֹתֵן דְּבַר שָׁנָה בְּשָׁנָה״ — אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ, אֶלָּא נוֹתֵן אֶת כּוּלּוֹ כְּאֶחָד. אֶחָד בְּעָלִים וְאֶחָד כׇּל הָאָדָם, מָה בֵּין בְּעָלִים לְכׇל אָדָם? אֶלָּא שֶׁבְּעָלִים נוֹתְנִין חוֹמֶשׁ, וְכׇל אָדָם אֵין נוֹתְנִין חוֹמֶשׁ.

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.

גְּמָ׳ תָּנָא: כּוֹר זֶרַע, וְלֹא כּוֹר תְּבוּאָה, מַפּוֹלֶת יָד, וְלֹא מַפּוֹלֶת שְׁוָורִים. תָּנֵי לֵוִי: לֹא מְעֻבֶּה וְלָא מֵידֵק, אֶלָּא בֵּינוֹנִי.

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: The phrase: “The sowing of a ḥomer of barley shall be valued at fifty shekels of silver” (Leviticus 27:16), is referring to an area required for sowing one kor, thirty se’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.

הָיוּ שָׁם נְקָעִים עֲמוּקִּים כּוּ׳. וְלִיקְדְּשׁוּ בְּאַנְפֵּי נַפְשַׁיְיהוּ!

§ 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.

וְכִי תֵּימָא, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא הָווּ בֵּית כּוֹר, לָא (הֲווֹ) קָדְשִׁי, וְהָתַנְיָא: שְׂדֵה, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״זֶרַע חוֹמֶר שְׂעוֹרִים בַּחֲמִשִּׁים שֶׁקֶל כָּסֶף״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁהִקְדִּישׁ כָּעִנְיָן הַזֶּה, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת לֶתֶךְ וַחֲצִי לֶתֶךְ, סְאָה וְתַרְקַב וַחֲצִי תַרְקַב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״שָׂדֶה״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם!

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 isn’t it taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And if a man shall sanctify for the Lord part of his ancestral field” (Leviticus 27:16). Why must the verse state: “Field”? Since it is stated in the same verse: “Your valuation shall be according to its sowing; the sowing of a ḥomer of barley shall be valued at fifty shekels of silver,” 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 se’a or a half-se’a [vetarkav], or even half of a half-se’a? The verse states: “Field,” indicating that one may consecrate a field in any case, regardless of size.

אָמַר מָר עוּקְבָא בַּר חָמָא: הָכָא בִּנְקָעִים מְלֵאִים מַיִם, דְּלָאו בְּנֵי זְרִיעָה נִינְהוּ. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי דּוּמְיָא דִסְלָעִים, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

Mar Ukva bar Ḥama 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.

אִי הָכִי, פָּחוֹת מִכָּאן נָמֵי! הָנְהוּ נְגָאנֵי דְאַרְעָא מִיקְּרוּ, שִׁידְרֵי דְּאַרְעָא מִיקְּרוּ.

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.

הִקְדִּישָׁהּ שְׁתַּיִם וְשָׁלֹשׁ וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן:

§ 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: “But 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 valuation” (Leviticus 27:18).

״וְנִגְרַע מֵעֶרְכֶּךָ״, אַף מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ, שֶׁאִם אֲכָלָהּ הֶקְדֵּשׁ שָׁנָה אוֹ שְׁתַּיִם, אִי נָמֵי לֹא אֲכָלָהּ, אֶלָּא שֶׁהָיְתָה לְפָנָיו — נוֹתֵן סֶלַע וּפוּנְדְּיוֹן לְשָׁנָה.

The baraita states that the apparently superfluous phrase “And a deduction shall be made from your valuation” 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 field’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.

וְאִם אָמַר ״הֲרֵינִי נוֹתֵן״ כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם אָמְרוּ בְּעָלִים ״הֲרֵינוּ נוֹתְנִין דְּבַר שָׁנָה בְּשָׁנָה״, שֶׁאֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לָהֶם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְחִשַּׁב לוֹ הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֶּסֶף״, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא כֶּסֶף כּוּלּוֹ כְּאֶחָד. אֶחָד בְּעָלִים וְאֶחָד כׇּל אָדָם, מָה בֵּין בְּעָלִים לְכׇל אָדָם? שֶׁהַבְּעָלִים נוֹתְנִין חוֹמֶשׁ, וְכׇל אָדָם אֵין נוֹתְנִין חוֹמֶשׁ.

§ 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: “Then the priest shall reckon for him the money” (Leviticus 27:18). The term “the money” 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.

מַתְנִי׳ הִקְדִּישָׁהּ וּגְאָלָהּ — אֵינָהּ יוֹצְאָה מִיָּדוֹ בַּיּוֹבֵל, גְּאָלָהּ בְּנוֹ — יוֹצְאָה לְאָבִיו בְּיוֹבֵל, גְּאָלָהּ אַחֵר אוֹ אֶחָד מֵהַקְּרוֹבִים, וּגְאָלָהּ מִיָּדוֹ — יוֹצְאָה לַכֹּהֲנִים בַּיּוֹבֵל.

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 son’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 owner’s possession and given to the priests during the Jubilee Year.

גְּאָלָהּ אֶחָד מִן הַכֹּהֲנִים, וַהֲרֵי הִיא תַּחַת יָדוֹ, לֹא יֹאמַר: הוֹאִיל וְהִיא יוֹצְאָה לַכֹּהֲנִים בַּיּוֹבֵל וַהֲרֵי הִיא תַּחַת יְדֵי — הֲרֵי הִיא שֶׁלִּי, אֶלָּא יוֹצְאָה מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ וּמִתְחַלֶּקֶת לְכׇל אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים.

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.

גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן:

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: “And 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” (Leviticus 27:20–21).

״אִם לֹא יִגְאַל אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה״ — בְּעָלִים, ״וְאִם מָכַר אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה״ — גִּיזְבָּר.

The phrase “and if he will not redeem the field” 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 “or if he sold the field” 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.

״לְאִישׁ אַחֵר״ — לְאַחֵר, וְלֹא לַבֵּן. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: לְאַחֵר וְלֹא לַבֵּן, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְאַחֵר וְלֹא לָאָח? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״אִישׁ״ — הֲרֵי אָח אָמוּר, הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״אַחֵר״ — וְלֹא לַבֵּן.

The baraita continues: “To another man,” 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: “Man,” the brother is stated, i.e., he is included in the category of a man. How do I realize the meaning of: “Another man”? It must mean: Another, but not his son.

וּמָה רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַבֵּן וּלְהוֹצִיא אֶת הָאָח? מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי הַבֵּן, שֶׁכֵּן קָם תַּחַת אָבִיו לִיעִידָה וּלְעֶבֶד עִבְרִי.

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 deceased’s brother inherits the servant, he goes free.

אַדְּרַבָּה, מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי אֶת הָאָח, שֶׁכֵּן קָם תַּחַת אָחִיו לְיִיבּוּם. כְּלוּם יֵשׁ יִבּוּם אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין בֵּן? הָא יֵשׁ בֵּן — אֵין יִבּוּם.

The baraita objects: On the contrary, I should include the brother, as he stands in his brother’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.

וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ, דְּהָכָא תַּרְתֵּי, וְהָכָא חֲדָא!

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 father’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?

מִשּׁוּם דְּעֶבֶד עִבְרִי מֵהַאי פִּירְכָא נָמֵי הוּא דְּנָפְקָא לֵיהּ: כְּלוּם יֵשׁ יִבּוּם אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין בֵּן?

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 father’s status to the son rather than to the brother. Accordingly, this last refutation is the basis for the conclusion.

בָּעֵי רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: בַּת מַהוּ שֶׁתַּעֲמִיד שָׂדֶה לְאָבִיהָ? כֵּיוָן דִּלְעִנְיַן יִבּוּם, בֵּן וּבַת כִּי הֲדָדֵי פָּטְרִי — מוֹקְמָה, אוֹ דִילְמָא כֵּיוָן דִּלְעִנְיַן נַחֲלָה, בַּת בִּמְקוֹם בֵּן כִּי אַחֵר דָּמְיָא — לָא מוֹקְמָה.

§ 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 father’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 father’s estate, she does not preserve possession of the field for her father.

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: כֹּל שֶׁהוּא אַחֵר בִּמְקוֹם בֵּן, וְהָא נָמֵי בִּמְקוֹם בֵּן כִּי אַחֵר דָּמְיָא.

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.

בָּעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: אִשָּׁה מִי מַעֲמִיד לָהּ שָׂדֶה? בַּעַל מוֹקֵים לַהּ, שֶׁכֵּן יוֹרְשָׁהּ, אוֹ דִילְמָא בֵּן מוֹקֵים לַהּ, שֶׁכֵּן נוֹטֵל בָּרָאוּי כְּבַמּוּחְזָק? תֵּיקוּ.

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.

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא מֵרַב חִסְדָּא: הִקְדִּישָׁהּ פָּחוֹת מִשְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים לִפְנֵי הַיּוֹבֵל, מַהוּ שֶׁתֵּצֵא לַכֹּהֲנִים?

§ Rami bar Ḥama raised a dilemma before Rav Ḥisda: 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?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי דַּעְתָּיךְ? ״וְנִגְרַע מֵעֶרְכֶּךָ… וְהָיָה הַשָּׂדֶה בְּצֵאתוֹ בַיּוֹבֵל״ — דְּבַת גֵּירָעוֹן — אִין, דְּלָאו בַּת גֵּירָעוֹן — לָא.

Rav Ḥisda said to him: What is your reasoning? Is it that since the verse states: “And a deduction shall be made from your valuation” (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: “But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy for the Lord…his ancestral possession shall be for the priest” (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?

אַדְּרַבָּה, ״אִם לֹא יִגְאַל הַשָּׂדֶה… וְהָיָה הַשָּׂדֶה בְּצֵאתוֹ בַיּוֹבֵל״, וְהַאי נָמֵי בַּת גְּאוּלָּה הִיא.

Rav Ḥisda responds: On the contrary, the verse states: “And 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…his ancestral possession shall be for the priest” (Leviticus 27:20–21). 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.

גְּאָלָהּ אֶחָד מִן הַכֹּהֲנִים כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״לַכֹּהֵן תִּהְיֶה אֲחוּזָּתוֹ״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר?

§ 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: “But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy for the Lord…his ancestral possession shall be for the priest” (Leviticus 27:21)?

מִנַּיִן לְשָׂדֶה שֶׁיּוֹצָא לַכֹּהֲנִים בַּיּוֹבֵל, וּגְאָלָהּ אֶחָד מִן הַכֹּהֲנִים, מִנַּיִן שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר: ״הוֹאִיל וְיוֹצְאָה לַכֹּהֵן, הֲרֵי תַּחַת יָדִי, וּתְהֵא שֶׁלִּי?״ וְדִין הוּא: בְּשֶׁל אֲחֵרִים אֲנִי זוֹכֶה, בְּשֶׁל עַצְמִי לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

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?

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲחוּזָּתוֹ״, אֲחוּזָּה שֶׁלּוֹ, וְאֵין זֶה שֶׁלּוֹ. הָא כֵּיצַד? יוֹצָא מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ וּמִתְחַלֶּקֶת לְאֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים.

Therefore, the verse states: “His ancestral possession,” 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.

מַתְנִי׳ הִגִּיעַ יוֹבֵל וְלֹא נִגְאֲלָה, הַכֹּהֲנִים נִכְנָסִין לְתוֹכָהּ וְנוֹתְנִין אֶת דָּמֶיהָ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: נִכְנָסִין וְלֹא נוֹתְנִין.

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.

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: לֹא נִכְנָסִין וְלֹא נוֹתְנִין, אֶלָּא נִקְרֵאת ״שְׂדֵה רְטוּשִׁין״ עַד הַיּוֹבֵל הַשֵּׁנִי. הִגִּיעַ הַיּוֹבֵל הַשֵּׁנִי וְלֹא נִגְאֲלָה, נִקְרֵאת ״רְטוּשֵׁי רְטוּשִׁין״ עַד הַיּוֹבֵל הַשְּׁלִישִׁי. לְעוֹלָם אֵין הַכֹּהֲנִים נִכְנָסִין לְתוֹכָהּ עַד שֶׁיִּגְאָלֶנָּה אַחֵר.

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.

גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? גָּמַר ״קֹדֶשׁ״ ״קֹדֶשׁ״ מִמַּקְדִּישׁ בַּיִת,

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda’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 “holy” stated in reference to an ancestral field, and the word “holy” that appears with regard to one who consecrates a house.

מָה לְהַלָּן בְּדָמִים — אַף כָּאן בְּדָמִים.

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

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, גָּמַר ״קֹדֶשׁ״ ״קֹדֶשׁ״ מִכִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת, מָה לְהַלָּן בְּחִנָּם, אַף כָּאן בְּחִנָּם.

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 “holy” used with regard to an ancestral field, and the word “holy” 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: “They shall be holy to the Lord for the priest” (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.

וְרַבִּי [יְהוּדָה] נָמֵי נֵילַיף מִכִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת! דָּנִין קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת

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,