Arakhin 26a (כו.) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

They derive

the ancestral field, which is

consecrated for the Temple maintenance, from a consecrated field, which is also

which is also

consecrated for the Temple maintenance; but they do not derive a field

from the Temple maintenance funds from the sheep of assembly, which are

consecrated for the altar.

And we raise a difficulty:

But Rabbi Shimon likewise

why does he derive the ancestral field through the phrase “holy, holy” from the sheep of assembly?

Let him derive

the ancestral field through the phrase “holy, holy”

from one who consecrates a house,

and let it be redeemed for money?

And we answer:

They derive

the ancestral field, which is

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

namely, the sheep of assembly.

But they do not derive something given to the priests from something that is not given to the priests,

namely, a house that was consecrated.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says: They neither enter nor give.

What is the reason for Rabbi Eliezer’s view? Rava said:

It is written: “And if he does not redeem the field, and if he sold the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed anymore. And the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy, etc.; to the priest shall be his ancestral possession.” And Rabbi Eliezer interprets the verse as follows:

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

—the owner, and it remains in the possession of the consecration—

it shall not be redeemed anymore,’

but it does not go out to the priests.

And if

the Temple treasurer

sold the field

to another man:

‘And the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee,’

etc., “to the priest”; but “and the field, etc.” does not refer back to “and if he does not redeem, etc.”

And we are astonished:

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 in that manner. Rather, the phrase “and the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, etc.” continues the preceding statement of the verse: “And if he does not redeem, etc., it shall not be redeemed anymore. And the field, etc.” This teaches that even if it was neither redeemed nor sold, it goes out to the priests.

And we provide another explanation:

Rather, Abaye said: The reason for Rabbi Eliezer

who holds that the field does not go out from the consecration to the priests

is as it is taught:

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

‘it shall not be redeemed

anymore.’” And we learned from this that once the Jubilee arrives, the owner can no longer redeem it so that the field will return to him as an ancestral field, and it will not go out of his possession to the priests.

One might have thought

that since it is stated

‘it shall not be redeemed’

by him, even

if it is before him

—the owner—

as an acquired field,

which is acquired from the consecration and goes out from the purchaser to the priests in the Jubilee; that is, he cannot redeem it completely.

The verse therefore states: “It shall not be redeemed

“He may not be redeemed

anymore,”

although it could have said merely “it shall not be redeemed,” to teach:

In the manner in which it was

an ancestral field, it

cannot be redeemed,

as it is written, “and it shall not be redeemed.”

But it can be redeemed

by the owner

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

and it will go out from him to the priests in the Jubilee.

And we explain the beraita:

When

—at what time do we include the owner’s redemption, so that it will be before him as an acquired field?

If you say in the first Jubilee

—before the Jubilee year arrives—this cannot be.

Why

would there be any reason to say that it

cannot be redeemed,

when even

an ancestral field

is also

redeemed by the owner before the first Jubilee year?!

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

at the second Jubilee [

in the second Jubilee

[before the second Jubilee year arrives]. For at that point it cannot be redeemed so as to become an ancestral field for them, since it is written, “and it shall not be redeemed”; nevertheless, the verse includes that it can still be redeemed so that it becomes an acquired field for the owners.

We explain further:

And according to whom—that is, who is the tanna of the beraita who expounds “anymore” in this manner?

And according to whom—that is, who is the tanna of the beraita who expounds “anymore” in this manner?

If you say: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon,

who taught that it is redeemed in the second Jubilee, this cannot be, since according to their view, already in the first Jubilee

to the priests

it goes out!

[And to explain that the beraita is also according to Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda, referring to redemption from the priests, is impossible, since the term “redemption” does not apply to taking something from the priests; rather, the term is “purchase”—Tosafot Ha-Rosh in the Shita Mekubetzet.]

Rather, is it not Rabbi Eliezer

who expounds it in this manner, for according to him, in the second Jubilee it is still in the possession of the consecration?

And now we explain the reason:

Infer from this that the principal

reason for

reason for Rabbi Eliezer

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

is learned from here: The Torah added the word “anymore,” since it can be interpreted only according to Rabbi Eliezer’s view, that in the second Jubilee it is still in the possession of the consecration and has not gone out to the priests.

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:

But can you understand it—that this is the meaning of the beraita, as we explained it?! For if so,

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

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon,

who hold that it goes out from the consecration to the priests in the first Jubilee, cannot interpret the extra word “anymore” as we explained,

what do they expound this “anymore” to mean?!

We are necessarily compelled to explain the intention of the beraita in a manner that can also be understood according to Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, and consequently there is no source for Rabbi Eliezer’s position.

And now we give another explanation of the beraita:

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

in the Jubilee. Once it reaches the possession of a priest, it is his “ancestral field,” as it is stated: “To the priest shall be his ancestral possession,”

and the priest consecrated it

after the Jubilee.

And the owners

who owned it originally

come to redeem it

like any other person.

It might have entered your mind to say that, without the additional derivation from “anymore,”

he

he may not redeem it

at all, even

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

since he did not redeem it from the original consecration, he may not redeem it at all.

The verse therefore states: “It shall not be redeemed

“He may not be redeemed

anymore” in the second Jubilee, to teach:

at the second Jubilee, teaching:

In the manner in which it was

an ancestral field—that is, one that does not go out to the priests from its owner—

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 is taught in a beraita:

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

“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 took it,

through the redemption money he gave to the consecration.

The verse therefore states: “To the one who owns the ancestral land,”

meaning the owner of the ancestral field who sold it to the consecrator.

Let

the verse

say: “To the one who owns the ancestral 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 an ancestral field

that went out to the priests

in the Jubilee,

and a priest sold it

—the priest who received it from the consecration—

and the purchaser consecrated it,

and for him it is an acquired field,

and another person redeemed it

from the consecration. In every case of an acquired field that was consecrated, once the Jubilee arrives it returns to the owner of the ancestral field. If so,

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

the Israelite who originally had it as an ancestral field.

The verse therefore states: The field shall return

to

“to the one from whom he ‘purchased it,’”

and it is impossible to interpret this as its returning to the first Israelite owner of the ancestral field who consecrated it, since it was not purchased from him at all; he merely consecrated it. Rather, it returns to the priest from whom the second consecrator purchased it, since for that priest it is now an ancestral field.

We have therefore learned that since the original owners did not redeem it in the first Jubilee and the field went out to a priest, who then sold it, it no longer returns to them as an ancestral field through the return of the Jubilee. This supports the explanation given in the first beraita: Once the field went out to a priest and he consecrated it, it no longer returns to become an ancestral field for them through redemption, as derived from the verse “it shall 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 in the Jubilee would not return to the original owners, for whom this field had been an ancestral field;

and it was necessary to write, “it shall not be redeemed”—

that the field that went out to the priests does not return to the original owners through redemption so as to become an ancestral field for them.

And the reason is:

If the Merciful One had written, “it shall not be redeemed,”

referring to a field that the priest “consecrated,” we would have said that only in this case does it not return to the original owners to become an ancestral field for them, since

it does not return at all—

that is, the law requiring its return to the priest, who is the owner of the ancestral field, so that it becomes an ancestral field for him has already been removed from it, since a consecrated ancestral field does not return in the Jubilee. Therefore it does not return to the original owners to become an ancestral field for them.

But here, in the derivation “to the one from whom he purchased it,” where the case is a field that the priest “sold,”

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

which does return—

that is, it is subject to the law requiring its return in the Jubilee to the owner of the ancestral field [like any other acquired field that was consecrated]—we would say that, since it returns in the Jubilee,

it should return to the first owner,

who was the first owner of the ancestral field. Therefore,

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

teaching that although it returns, it does not return to the original owners; rather, it returns to the priest who is now the owner of the ancestral field.

And if the Merciful One had written

only

“to the one from whom he purchased it,”

referring to a return “in the Jubilee,” we would have said that only here does it not return to the first owner of the ancestral field, since

the owners did not give money

for the field to the consecration, and we view it as returning to him without payment, like any other release in the Jubilee. Therefore it does not return to the first owner of the ancestral field, but to the priest who is the owner of the ancestral field.

But here, in the verse “it shall not be redeemed,” where the case concerns its returning to become an ancestral field through redemption,

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

the original owners do give

the field’s owners

money

to the consecration. If so,

it should remain in their possession,

and it should become an ancestral field for them, which does not go out in the Jubilee. Therefore,

the Merciful One wrote, “it shall not be redeemed,”

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

We explain further:

And if the Merciful One had written, “it shall not be redeemed”

alone,

and had not written

“it shall not be redeemed”

“anymore,” one might have thought: He may not redeem it at all—

the field that went out from the consecration to the priests and that the priest consecrated—by its original owners, and even so as to become an acquired field for them, like other redeemers. Therefore,

the Merciful One wrote “anymore,”

to teach:

In the manner in which it was

an ancestral field for the original owners,

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

—the original owners—

as an acquired field.

And now we return and raise a difficulty: Since the explanation of the first beraita based on “it shall not be redeemed” has been rejected, and there is no source for Rabbi Eliezer’s statement that a field does not go out from the consecration to the priests if it was not redeemed by another person,

what became of it

—the reason for Rabbi Eliezer’s view, and from where did he learn it?

And we answer:

Rava said: The verse states: “And the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee

holy, etc., to the priest, etc.” From the fact that it says “when it goes out in the Jubilee,” it appears that we already knew that it goes out in the Jubilee from the passage concerning one who sells an ancestral field; rather, the Torah teaches us that when it goes out, it goes out to the priests. It necessarily follows that the verse is speaking of

when it goes out

in the Jubilee

immediately after

the person purchased it from the consecration. In this case we know that it goes out in the Jubilee, since it is included in the acquisition of an ancestral field, which returns in the Jubilee. If so, the passage does not include a field that is still in the possession of the consecration, from which we might learn that it goes out in the Jubilee to the priests, since regarding this field, which was consecrated and not sold, we have not yet heard that it goes out in the Jubilee, whereas the verse implies that we have already heard this.