Arakhin 25b — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is written in the section of the ancestral field: “And if he shall indeed redeem the field, he who consecrated it, etc. And if he shall not redeem the field, and if he sold the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed any more. And the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy to the Lord; like a field of the ban, its holding shall be the priest’s.” And they interpret the verse as follows:

“If he shall not redeem the field”:

the

owner; “and if he sold the field”: the treasurer

is the one who sold it;

“to another man”

then it shall belong to the priests in the Jubilee. And they exclude:

“to another,” but not to a son;

for if the son of the consecrator redeemed it, it does not go out to the priests; rather, it returns to his father, the consecrator.

Do you say “to another, but not to a son,” or is it not

this interpretation,

but

exclude

“to another, but not to a brother

of the consecrator”? It is not so, for

when it says “

and if he sold the field

to a man,”

it shall go out to the priests in the Jubilee,

a brother is stated

within this, that it shall go out to the priests. And if so,

how do I fulfill “another”? “To another,” but not to a son.

And what did you see to include the son

so that if he redeemed it, it would not go out to the priests, but would return to his father,

and to exclude the brother

so that he would not prevent the field from going out to the priests, by returning it to his brother? And let it be said that when the brother redeemed it, it returns to his brother and does not go out to the priests.

I include

the

son, since

we find that he

takes the place of his father:

a.

For designation

of the Hebrew maidservant as a wife, with the money that his father gave for her when he acquired her, and he does not need other money, just as his father designates her to him as a wife with this money. b.

And for a Hebrew slave,

who serves the master’s son when the master dies. But the master’s brother does not take his brother’s place in these two matters: he does not designate his brother’s Hebrew maidservant, and the Hebrew slave does not serve his master’s brother even when he dies without sons and his brother inherits his other property. Therefore, also with regard to redemption, the son is preferable to the brother to take the place of the consecrator for redeeming an ancestral field.

And he refutes himself:

On the contrary, I include the brother

to preserve the field for his brother,

since he takes the place of his brother

who died without sons

for levirate marriage

with his wife?

And he explains:

Is there levirate marriage except where there is no son? Here

where

there is a son, there is no levirate marriage

—so, on the contrary, with regard to levirate marriage the son is preferable to the brother [Tosafot]!

And we refute this:

And let him derive it

—even without the refutation that there is levirate marriage only where there is no son—for it is reasonable to include the son, although with regard to levirate marriage we find that the brother is preferable,

for here,

with regard to the son, there are

two

advantages over the brother: a. designation; b. Hebrew slave;

whereas here, in the advantage of the brother, there is

only

one:

levirate marriage alone.

And we answer:

Because of the Hebrew slave

—which is one of the son’s advantages—this very law

also emerges for him from this refutation: that he serves the son and not the brother. Without this, we would not know whether he serves the son, who takes his father’s place for designation, or the brother, who takes his place for levirate marriage. It is only because we refute,

“Is there levirate marriage except where there is no son?”

that we learn that he serves the son. Therefore the refutation, “Is there levirate marriage except where there is no son?” is necessary.

Rabba bar Avuha asked: A daughter

who redeemed an ancestral field that her father had consecrated,

what is the law: may she preserve

the

field

in the Jubilee, so that it does not go out to the priests, but returns

to her father?

And this is what he asks: Shall we say

since with regard to levirate marriage, son and daughter alike exempt

their mother from levirate marriage, therefore she

preserves

the field for her father—as does a son?

Or perhaps, since with regard to inheritance, a daughter in the place

where there is a

son resembles another

—for it is the son who inherits and not the daughter—

she does not preserve it!

And she is like another, who does not preserve it.

And we resolve it:

Come and hear, for the school of Rabbi Ishmael taught: Anyone who is another

even if he is not another except

in the place

where there is a

son,

does not preserve it!

And this

daughter

also, in the place of a son, resembles another

and therefore she does not preserve it.

Rabbi Zeira asked: A woman

who consecrated a field from property of melog [whose substance belongs to her and whose produce the husband consumes],

who

is this [besides herself] who, if he redeems her consecration,

preserves the field for her

so that it does not go out to the priests, but returns to her?

And this is what he asks: Shall we say that

the husband

of the woman

preserves

it,

for her,

the field,

since he inherits her

even where there is a son, and he is not “another”?

Or perhaps, a son

preserves it for her

and not the husband,

since

the son is superior to a husband: when the son inherits his mother, he

takes inheritance even

an inheritance even

of property destined

to fall to his mother after her death,

as property in possession

of her hand at the time of her death. This is not so with a husband, who does not inherit property destined to fall to his wife after her death [for example, if her father died after her death].

And we conclude:

Teyku!

Rami bar Hama asked Rav Hisda: If the consecrator consecrated

the field

less than two years before the Jubilee,

so that the law of this field is that it is redeemed from the consecration without deducting the years that have passed [as above at the beginning of the chapter],

what is the law: does it go out to the priests

in the Jubilee if another came and redeemed it without deduction?

And we raise an objection:

He said to him

Rav Hisda to Rami bar Hama:

What is your opinion

in saying that it does not go out to the priests? Is it because in the section of the ancestral field it is written

“And it shall be deducted from your valuation,”

and it is also written

“And the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee,

shall be holy, etc.; to the priest shall be its holding,” and your opinion is that where I do not fulfill in it “and it shall be deducted from your valuation,” I do not fulfill “and the field, etc.”? Therefore:

That which is subject to deduction, yes; that which is not subject to deduction, no,

it goes out to the priests. This is not so, for

on the contrary, one should expound that it does go out to the priests: since it is written,

the verse should be expounded to mean that it does leave for the priests. Since it is written

“If he shall not redeem the field,”

and so on,

“and the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee,”

it implies that anything subject to redemption goes out to the priests,

and this too is subject to redemption,

even though it is not subject to redemption through deduction.

We learned in the Mishna:

If one of the priests redeemed it

etc., he may not say, etc., “It is mine.”

The Sages taught:

It is written: “And the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, etc.,

to the priest shall be his holding.” What does

“his holding” come to teach, and why did it not merely say, “To the priest shall it be”? To teach:

From where do we know concerning a field that goes out—that is, is fit to go out—

—that is, that is fit to leave—

to the priests in the Jubilee,

when the owners did not redeem it,

and one of the priests redeemed it

from the consecration,

from where do we know that he may not say:

Since it was going out

to a priest

if an Israelite had redeemed it,

and behold it is

now in the Jubilee

under my control, it shall be mine

alone and shall not go out to the other priests?

And it is a law

that it should be mine, by a kal va-chomer:

In the case of others

whom I redeemed,

in the case of my own I acquire,

through my redemption,

all the more so?! The verse therefore says “his holding,”

to exclude:

a holding

that he inherited from his father

is his, but this is not

what he did not inherit

is his. How is it

with regard to the field?

It goes out from under his control and is divided among his priestly brothers,

and he takes his portion like them.

Mishna:

The Jubilee arrived and it was not redeemed

—the consecrated ancestral field, neither by the owners nor by another—

the priests enter it and give

to the consecration

its value,

which is fifty sela,

the words of Rabbi Judah [but if it was redeemed by another, they enter without payment; and if by the owners, they do not enter at all].

Rabbi Shimon says: They enter

the priests into the field

and do not give

money.

Rabbi Eliezer says:

Since the field was not redeemed,

the priests do not enter

the field

and do not give

money,

but it is called: a field of abandonment

for they abandoned it from redeeming it, and it remains under the control of the consecration even after the Jubilee

until

another redeems it, and it goes out from him to the priests when

the second Jubilee arrives.

The

second

Jubilee also arrived and it was not redeemed; it is called: a field of repeated abandonment

for it was abandoned twice!

Until

they come and redeem it, and it goes out from their control to the priests when

the third Jubilee arrives,

and so on, and

the priests never enter it until another redeems it.

Gemara:

What is the reason of Rabbi Judah? He derives

by a gzera shava: it is written, “When he consecrates his house,

holy,” and it is written concerning an ancestral field, “And the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee,

and it is written regarding an ancestral field, “and the field, when it leaves at the Jubilee, shall be

holy, etc., to the priest shall be his holding.” And they expound a gzera shava

and so on; its ancestral property shall belong to the priest.” And they derive a conclusion based on the identical expression

from one who consecrates a house: just as there

in the case of one who consecrates a house, it never goes out from the control of the consecration except

through payment,

when they come to redeem it, as it is written, “And the priest shall value it, etc.” [and going out in the Jubilee to the priests likewise does not apply to one who consecrates a house],

so here too,

in the ancestral field, it never goes out from the control of the consecration except

through payment,

either another redeems it and gives its value, or the priests give its value for it.

And Rabbi Shimon,

who holds that it goes out to the priests without payment, his reason is:

he derives

by a gzera shava from what is written concerning the sheep of the Festival of Weeks, “

Holy

shall they be to the Lord, for the priest,” [and they are included among the twenty-four priestly gifts that are given to a priest], and it is written concerning an ancestral field [which is also among the twenty-four priestly gifts], “And the field, etc.,

holy

etc., to the priest shall be his holding.” And they expound a gzera shava: an ancestral field

from the sheep of the Festival of Weeks: just as there

in the case of the sheep of the Festival of Weeks, they are given to the priests

without payment, so here

the ancestral field is given to them

without payment.

And we raise an objection:

And Rabbi Judah also,

why does he derive the gzera shava “holy, holy” from the consecration of a house?

Let him derive

“holy, holy”

from the sheep of the Festival of Weeks,

and let it be given to the priests without payment?!