Arakhin 26a — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

We derive

the law of an ancestral field that is

consecrated for the repair of the Temple from the law of a house consecrated for the repair of the Temple,

which is also

consecrated for the repair of the Temple. But we do not derive the law of property consecrated for the repair of the Temple from the festival sheep, which are

consecrated for the altar

!

And we ask:

But Rabbi Shimon as well

learns the law of an ancestral field through the identical expression “holy, holy” from the festival sheep. Why does he not

derive

the law of an ancestral field through the identical expression “holy, holy”

from the one who consecrates a house

and have it leave the consecrated property in exchange for money?

And we answer:

We derive

the law of an ancestral field, which is

something given to the priests, from something given to the priests—

namely, the festival sheep!

But we do not derive something given to the priests from something that is not given to the priests—

namely, a consecrated house!

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says: They neither enter nor give.

What is Rabbi Eliezer’s reason? Rava said:

It is written: “And if he does not redeem the field, and if he sold the field to another man, he may not be redeemed any more. And the field, when it leaves in the Jubilee, shall be holy … it shall belong to the priest as his ancestral property.” Rabbi Eliezer explains the verse as follows:

The verse says: ‘And if he does not redeem the field

—the owner, while it is in the possession of the consecrated property—

he may not be redeemed any more’—

but it does not go out to the priests.

And if he sold

the treasurer

the field

to another man,

‘and the field, when it leaves in the Jubilee

… shall belong to the priest.’” The phrase “and the field …” does not refer back to “and if he does not redeem …”

And we challenge this:

Abaye said:

Do

we have a sharp knife

in our hands, so that it can

cut apart the verses?!

But the text is not written that way. Rather, “and the field, when it leaves in the Jubilee …” continues the verse that says: “And if he does not redeem … he may not be redeemed any more. And the field …” This teaches that even if it was neither redeemed nor sold, it goes out to the priests.

And we give another reason:

Rather, Abaye said: The reason for Rabbi Eliezer

who holds that a field does not go out from the consecrated property to the priests

is as it was taught:

It is written: “And if he does not redeem the field [the owner] …

he may not be redeemed

any more.” We learn from this that once the Jubilee arrives, the owner can no longer redeem the field so that it will again be in his possession as ancestral property, and it will not leave his possession to the priests.

One might have thought

that when the verse says it

is not to be redeemed

by him, this applies even

when it is before him

—the owner—

as an acquired field

that is acquired from the consecrated property and leaves the purchaser’s possession for the priests at the Jubilee. That is, perhaps it cannot be redeemed at all.

The verse therefore says:

“He may not be redeemed

any more.”

It could have said only “he may not be redeemed”; the additional word teaches:

As it was

ancestral property, it

cannot be redeemed,

as it is written: “and he may not be redeemed.”

But it can be redeemed

for the owner

so that it will be before him as an acquired field,

and it will leave his possession at the Jubilee for the priests.

And we explain the beraita:

When—

at what time did we include the owner’s redemption, so that the field would be before him as an acquired field?

If you say: at the first Jubilee

and before the Jubilee year arrived, this cannot be.

Why

would there be any reason to say that it

cannot be redeemed,

when even

an ancestral field

also is

redeemable by the owner before the first Jubilee year?!

Rather, it is obvious that we came to include the owner’s redemption

at the second Jubilee [

before the second Jubilee year arrived].

At that point, the field cannot be redeemed so as to become ancestral property for them, since it is written: “and he may not be redeemed.” The verse nevertheless includes that it can be redeemed and become an acquired field for the owners.

And we explain further: As for whom—

that is, who is the tan­nnait in the beraita who interprets the word “any more” in this way—

они, которые истолковали, что во второй юбилей оно будет выкуплено? Это невозможно, ведь согласно их мнению уже в первый юбилей

if you say it is Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon,

who taught that it is redeemed at the second Jubilee, this is impossible, since according to their view, already at the first Jubilee it goes out

to the priests

! [

It is also impossible to explain that the beraita speaks according to Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda and refers to redemption from the priests, since the term “redemption” does not apply to taking it from the priests; the appropriate term would be “purchase”—Tosafot Ha-Rosh in the Shita Mekubetzet].

Rather, is it not Rabbi Eliezer

who interprets it this way, since according to him, at the second Jubilee it is still in the possession of the consecrated property?

And now we explain the reason:

Learn from this that the main

reason for

Rabbi Eliezer’s view,

that if the field was not redeemed it does not go out to the priests,

is learned from here:

The Torah added the word “any more,” since it can be explained only according to Rabbi Eliezer’s view—that at the second Jubilee the field is still in the possession of the consecrated property and has not gone out to the priests.

And we reject this reason:

Can you really explain

that this is the meaning of the beraita, as we explained it?! If so,

what do Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon,

who hold that the field leaves the consecrated property at the first Jubilee for the priests and cannot explain the extra word “any more” as we explained it,

derive from this word ‘any more’?!

We must necessarily explain the intention of the beraita in a way that can also be understood according to Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon; consequently, it cannot serve as a source for Rabbi Eliezer’s view.

And now we explain the beraita in another way:

Rather, what are we dealing with here? With a field that went out to the priests

at the Jubilee. Once it came into the possession of a priest, it became for him an “ancestral field,” as it is stated: “The priest shall have it as his ancestral property.”

And the priest consecrated it

after the Jubilee,

and the original owners

came

to redeem it

like anyone else.

It might have entered your mind to say that without the additional word “any more,”

he

could not redeem it

at all, even

so that it would be before him as an acquired field,

because, since he did not redeem it from its first consecration, he could not redeem it at all.

The verse therefore says:

“He may not be redeemed

any more”

at the second Jubilee, teaching:

As it was

ancestral property—which does not leave its owner for the priests—

it cannot be redeemed, but it can be redeemed

even by the original owners

so that it will be before him as an acquired field,

and it will go out to the priests.

And we support this explanation:

And it was taught in a beraita:

It is written, regarding an acquired field purchased from the owner of the ancestral property, which the purchaser consecrated and another person redeemed from the consecrated property:

“In the year of the Jubilee the field shall return to the one from whom he purchased it;” one might have thought

that the verse means that it

returns to the treasurer from whom he acquired it

through the payment he gave to the consecrated property?

The verse therefore says: “To the one who has the ancestral property of the land”—

the owner of the ancestral property who sold it to the person who consecrated it.

The verse could say

simply

“to the one who has the ancestral property of the land”

and that would be sufficient.

Why does the verse say, “to the one from whom he purchased it”?

To teach:

A field

that is ancestral property

which went out to the priests

at the Jubilee,

and the priest sold it

after receiving it from the consecrated property,

and the purchaser consecrated it,

while it was an acquired field for him,

and another person redeemed it

from the consecrated property. In the case of any consecrated acquired field, when the Jubilee arrives it returns to the owner of the ancestral property. If so,

one might have thought that it returns to the original owners,

the Israelite who originally possessed it as ancestral property.

The verse therefore says: The field shall return

to

“the one from whom he purchased it.”

It cannot mean that it returns to the original Israelite owner of the ancestral property who consecrated it, since it was not purchased from him at all, but was consecrated by him. Rather, it returns to the priest from whom the second purchaser bought it, since it is now the priest’s ancestral property.

We have thus learned that once the original owners did not redeem the field at the first Jubilee, and the field went out to a priest who then sold it, it no longer returns to them as ancestral property when the next Jubilee arrives. This supports what was explained in the first beraita: Once the field went out to a priest and he consecrated it, it does not again become ancestral property for the original owners through redemption, as the verse says: “He may not be redeemed.”

And we explain:

And it was necessary

also

to write, “to the one from whom he purchased it,”

so that an ancestral field that went out to the priests at the Jubilee would not return to the original owners, for whom this field had originally been ancestral property.

And it was necessary to write, “he may not be redeemed”—

that a field that went out to the priests cannot return to its original owners through redemption and become ancestral property for them.

The reason is as follows:

If the Merciful One had written only, “he may not be redeemed,”

and we were speaking of a field that the priest consecrated, we would have said that only in this case does it not return to the original owners as ancestral property, because

it does not return at all—

that is, the law requiring it to return to the priest, who is its owner as ancestral property, has already been removed, since a consecrated ancestral field does not return at the Jubilee. Therefore it does not return to the original owners as ancestral property either.

But here,

in the derivation from “to the one from whom he purchased it,” where the case is one in which the priest

sold it,

it does return—that is, it is subject to the law that it returns at the Jubilee to the owner of the ancestral property, like any other acquired field that was consecrated. If so, since it returns at the Jubilee,

it should return to the first owner,

who was the first owner of the ancestral property.

The Merciful One therefore wrote, “to the one from whom he purchased it,”

teaching that although it returns, it does not return to the original owners, but to the priest who is now its owner as ancestral property.

And if the Merciful One had written

only

“to the one from whom he purchased it,”

and the case involved a return at the Jubilee, we would have said that specifically here it does not return to the first owner of the ancestral property, because

the owners did not give money

for the field to the consecrated property. We therefore view its return to him as a free return, like other properties that leave their purchaser’s possession at the Jubilee; for that reason it does not return to the first owner of the ancestral property, but to the priest who is the current owner of the ancestral property.

But here,

in the verse “he may not be redeemed,” where the field becomes ancestral property through redemption,

the original owners do give

the field’s

money

to the consecrated property. If so,

it should remain in their possession,

and it should become ancestral property for them, which does not leave their possession at the Jubilee.

The Merciful One therefore wrote, “he may not be redeemed,”

teaching that even through payment it does not return to the original owners.

We further explain:

If the Merciful One had written only, “he may not be redeemed,”

alone,

and had not written

“he may not be redeemed”

“any more,” one might have thought that it could not be redeemed at all—

the field that went out from the consecrated property to the priests and that the priest consecrated, even by the owners, and even so as to become an acquired field for them, like other people who redeem consecrated property.

The Merciful One therefore wrote, “any more,”

to teach:

As it was

ancestral property for the original owners, it

cannot be redeemed, but it can be redeemed so that it will be before him

—the original owner—

as an acquired field.

And now we return and ask: Since the explanation of the first beraita based on “he may not be redeemed” has been rejected, and there is no source for Rabbi Eliezer’s statement that a field does not leave the consecrated property for the priests if it was not redeemed by another person,

what became of it

—what is Rabbi Eliezer’s reason, and from where did he learn it?

And we answer:

Rava said: The verse says, “And the field, when it leaves in the Jubilee

holy … it shall belong to the priest …” Since it says “when it leaves in the Jubilee,” this implies that we already know that it leaves at the Jubilee from the passage concerning one who sells an ancestral field. The Torah teaches us only that when it leaves, it leaves for the priests. Necessarily, the verse is speaking

when it leaves

at the Jubilee

immediately after

the person purchased it from the consecrated property. In this case we know that it leaves at the Jubilee, since it is included in the acquisition of an ancestral field, which returns at the Jubilee. If so, the passage does not include a field that is still in the possession of the consecrated property, from which we could learn that it leaves at the Jubilee for the priests. Regarding such a field, which was consecrated but not sold, we have not yet heard that it leaves at the Jubilee; yet the verse implies that this was already known.