Arakhin 26b — the Talmud in English

It was asked of them:

According to Rabbi Eliezer, who says that even after the first Jubilee the field remains in the possession of the hekdesh, what is the law of the redemption by the

owner in the second Jubilee?

And this is what we ask:

Is he like another person

who redeems from the hekdesh,

his money

not making it for him an ancestral field, and it goes out to the priests in the Jubilee?

Or not

is he like another person, but rather like the owner in the first Jubilee: just as in the first Jubilee it is redeemed for the owners and it is for them like an ancestral field and does not go out to the priests, so too in the second Jubilee they redeem it and it returns to them?

And we resolve it:

Come and hear,

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

he shall not redeem

it further.” And we learned: once the Jubilee arrives, the owners can no longer redeem it so that it should return to be in their possession as an ancestral field, so that it should not go out of their possession to the priests in the Jubilee.

One might have thought

that it means

it shall not be redeemed

by them even

so that it should be before him

of the owners

as an acquired field

acquired from the hekdesh, which goes out from the purchaser to the priests in the Jubilee—that is, that he does not redeem it completely.

The verse therefore says: “He shall not redeem

it

further,”

and it would have sufficed for it to say only “he shall not redeem,” to teach:

As it was

an ancestral field, it

is not redeemed,

for it is written, “he shall not redeem.”

But it is redeemed

for the owners

so that it should be before him as an acquired field, and it goes out from him in the Jubilee to the priests.

And we explain the beraita:

When—at what time did we come to include the redemption by the owners, so that it should be before them as an acquired field?

When

at what time did we come to include the redemption by the owners, so that it should be before them as an acquired field?

If you say in the first Jubilee

and before the Jubilee year arrived, this is impossible;

and why

would we say that it

is not redeemed,

when even

it would also be an ancestral field

through the redemption by the owners—before the first Jubilee year?!

Rather, it is obvious,

that we came to include the redemption by the owners

in the second Jubilee [before the second Jubilee year arrived],

when it is not redeemed to become for them an ancestral field, for it is written, “he shall not redeem”; and in this the verse includes that nevertheless it is redeemed, to be for the owners an acquired field.

We further explain:

And according to whom—that is, who is the tanna in the beraita who expounds “further” in this way?

Who is the tanna in the beraita who expounds “further” in this way?

If it is according to Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon,

who expounded that it is redeemed in the second Jubilee, this is impossible! For according to them, already in the first Jubilee it

goes out to the priests! Rather, is it not Rabbi Eliezer

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

And now we resolve the question:

And infer from this that the owners in the second Jubilee are considered like another person,

for we said that it is not redeemed for them to be an ancestral field.

And we reject this:

And can you understand it so,

that this is the explanation of the beraita as we explained?! But if so,

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon,

who hold that it goes out from the hekdesh in the first Jubilee to the priests, and cannot explain the extra word “further” as we explained,

what do they expound from this “further”?!

And necessarily we must explain the intention of the beraita in another manner, and the resolution of the question is rejected.

And now we explain another interpretation of the beraita:

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

in the Jubilee; and once it reached the hand of a priest, it is his “ancestral field,” as it is stated: “To the priest it shall be his inheritance,”

and the priest dedicated it

after the Jubilee,

and the original owners

came

come to redeem it

like any other person.

It might enter your mind

that without the inclusion of “further,”

he should not redeem it

at all, even

so that it should be

for them

as an acquired field,

since, because he did not redeem it from the first hekdesh of his own, he should not redeem it at all.

The verse therefore says: “He shall not redeem

it

further” in the second Jubilee, to teach:

in the second Jubilee, teaching:

As it was

an ancestral field—which does not go out to the priests from its owners—

it is not redeemed, but it is redeemed

even for the original owners,

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

and it goes out to the priests.

And we support this interpretation:

And it was taught:

It is written, in the passage of an acquired field that was purchased from the owner of the ancestral field, and the purchaser dedicated it and another person redeemed it from the hekdesh,

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

that the intention of the verse is that it

should return to the treasurer from whom he took it

through the redemption money that he gave to the hekdesh?

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

he is the owner of the ancestral field who sold it to the one who dedicated it.

Let

the verse

say, “to the one who has the inheritance of the land”

and that would suffice.

What does it teach by saying: “To the one from whom he purchased it

”? To teach:

A field

of inheritance

that went out to the priests

in the Jubilee,

and a priest sold it,

who had received it from the hekdesh,

and the purchaser dedicated it,

and it is for him an acquired field,

and another person redeemed it

from the hekdesh—and in every hekdesh of an acquired field, when the Jubilee arrives it returns to the owner of the ancestral field—and if so,

one might have thought it should return to the original owners,

the Israelite who originally had an ancestral field?!

The verse therefore says:

The field shall return

“to the one from whom he ‘purchased it’

”—and it is impossible to explain that it should return to the first Israelite owner of the ancestral field who dedicated it, for it was not purchased from him at all, but he dedicated it; rather, it returns to the priest from whom the second dedicator purchased it, for it is for him “now” an inheritance.

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—and he sold it—it no longer returns to them to be an ancestral field through the return of the Jubilee. And this is proof for what was explained in the first beraita: once the field went out to a priest and he dedicated it, it no longer returns to be for them an ancestral field through redemption, from the verse “he shall not redeem.”

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 should not return to the original owners to be for them an ancestral field,

and it was necessary to write “he shall not redeem”—

the field that went out to the priests—to prevent the original owners from making it theirs through redemption, so that it should be for them an ancestral field.

And the reason is:

For had the Merciful One written “he shall not redeem”,

speaking of a field “that the priest dedicated,” we would have said that specifically in this case it does not return to the original owners to be for them an ancestral field, since

it does not return at all—that is, the law of returning to the priest, who is the owner of the ancestral field, so that it should be for him the dedication of an ancestral field, has already lapsed, for the dedication of an ancestral field does not return in the Jubilee; and for that reason it does not return to the original owners to be their inheritance.

But

here, in the exposition “to the one from whom he purchased it,” where the field is one “that the priest sold,”

in the exposition “to the one from whom he purchased it,” where the reference is to a field that the priest “sold,”

it does return—that is, it has the law of returning in the Jubilee to the owner of the ancestral field [like any other acquired field that he dedicated]—and if so,

it should return to the first master,

who is the first owner of the ancestral field. Therefore:

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

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

And had the Merciful One written

only

“to the one from whom he purchased it”,

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

the owners are not considered to have given money

for the field to the hekdesh, and we consider that it should return to him without payment, like other property that leaves in the Jubilee; and for that reason 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 “he shall not redeem,” where we are dealing with its return to become an ancestral field through redemption,

the owners

the original ones

give

money

for the field to the hekdesh, and if so,

it should remain in their possession

of the original owners and be for them an ancestral field that does not go out in the Jubilee. Therefore:

the Merciful One wrote “he shall not redeem”,

that even through the giving of money it does not return to the original owners.

We further explain:

And had the Merciful One written “he shall not redeem”

alone,

and had not written

“he shall not redeem

further,”

I would have thought he should not redeem it at all

from the hekdesh—the field that went out to the priests and the priest dedicated—through the original owners, even so that it should be for them an acquired field like other redeemers. Therefore:

the Merciful One wrote “further”,

to teach:

As it was

an ancestral field for the original owners,

it is not redeemed, but it is redeemed so that it should be before him

of the original owners

as an acquired field.

And now we return to our question: since the interpretation of the beraita concerning “he shall not redeem” was rejected, then

what has become of it

—of the doubt whether the redemption by the owners in the second Jubilee is like that of another person, and it goes out to the priests, or whether it becomes for them an ancestral field and does not go out to the priests?

And we resolve it:

Come and hear,

from a beraita in which it is stated explicitly:

Rabbi Eliezer says: If the owners redeemed it in the second Jubilee, it goes out to the priests in the Jubilee,

for they are like another person.

And we raise an objection:

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: But we

in our Mishna

did not learn so,

for we learned:

Rabbi Eliezer says: The priests never enter into it until “another person” redeems it,

which implies another person and not the owners; and if the owners redeemed it, they do not enter into it?!

And we answer:

He said to him,

Rav Ashi to Ravina: The inference that it says “another person” and not the owners is to exclude owners who redeemed it in the first Jubilee, but

the owners in the second Jubilee,

even they

are considered like another person

and are included in “another person redeems it” of our Mishna.

There are those who say

that they resolve it as follows:

Come and hear:

Rabbi Eliezer says: If the owners redeemed it

in the second Jubilee,

it does not go out to the priests in the Jubilee,

for the owners in the second Jubilee are like the owners in the first Jubilee: it becomes an inheritance for them and does not go out to the priests.

And according to the ikka de-amrei, thus

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: We too have learned this

in our Mishna, that they are like the owners in the first Jubilee, for we learned:

Rabbi Eliezer says: The priests never enter into it until another person redeems it,

which implies another person and not the owners.

He said to him,

Rav Ashi to Ravina:

If from the Mishna,

there is no proof that they are like the owners in the first Jubilee, for

I would have thought that the owners in the second Jubilee are considered like another person

and are included in “another person redeems it”; therefore

it teaches us

the beraita that the owners in the second Jubilee are not treated like another person, but rather they are like the owners in the first Jubilee.

Mishna:

One who inherits a field from his father or from his other heirs—this is an ancestral field, which, if he dedicated it, is redeemed for fifty sela for a beit kor, and it has going out in the Jubilee to the priests.

One who purchases the ancestral field of his father or of his other heirs—it returns to his father in the Jubilee, and his acquisition in it is only an acquisition of produce, while ownership of the substance belongs to his father, like the other sellers of an ancestral field. And if he dedicated it, it is included in the dedication of an acquired field, which is redeemed from the hekdesh according to its value, and it does not go out in the Jubilee to the priests; rather, it returns to his father in the Jubilee.

One who purchases a field from his father, and his father dies,

and he is his heir,

and afterward he dedicated it, it is like an ancestral field,

and it is redeemed for fifty sela, and it has going out to the priests in the Jubilee.

And if

he dedicated it and afterward his father died, it is like an acquired field,

since at the time of its dedication he possessed an acquired field, and likewise it is redeemed according to its value. And if another person redeemed it from the hekdesh, it returns to the son in the Jubilee and does not go out to the priests, for at the time that he dedicated it, its substance did not belong to him, as it was destined to return to his father in the Jubilee; and he is like one who dedicates an acquired field, which, if another person redeems it, returns to the owner of the ancestral field in the Jubilee. Here, since the son inherited the right that his father had, it returns to him in the Jubilee,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon say:

One who purchases a field from his father and dedicated it, and afterward his father died,

it is

from now

like an ancestral field,

and it is redeemed for fifty silver [sela], and it has going out to the priests in the Jubilee,

as it is stated: “And if it is the field of his purchase, which is not from his ancestral field

he shall dedicate it, etc.” It has the law of an acquired field, and we expound:

A field that is not fit

at the time of dedication

to be an ancestral field

is what is an acquired field;

this one is excluded, for it is fit

at the time of dedication

to be an ancestral field

when his father dies. This teaches that once his father dies, it does not have the law of an acquired field, but rather that of an ancestral field.

An acquired field

that the purchaser dedicated

does not

go out to the priests in the Jubilee, for a person does not

dedicate

something that is not his

after the Jubilee, for this field was not his except until the Jubilee, when in the Jubilee it returns to the one who sold it to him, who is the owner of the ancestral field.

The priests and the Levites dedicate

a field in the cities of the Levites that they received in the Land

forever, and redeem

the priests and the Levites a field in their cities

forever, both before the Jubilee and after the Jubilee,

and it returns to be for them an ancestral field, as it is stated: “The redemption of the world shall be for the Levites.”

Gemara:

The Sages taught: From where is it derived concerning one who purchases a field from his father, “and he dedicated it and afterward his father died”—from where is it derived that it should be before him

from now

as an ancestral field? The verse therefore says: “And if it is the field of his purchase, which is not from his ancestral field

he shall dedicate it, etc.” It has the law of an acquired field, and we expound:

A field that is not fit

at the time of dedication

to be an ancestral field

has the law of an acquired field;

this one is excluded, for it is fit

at the time of dedication

to be an ancestral field, the words of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Meir says,

they expound as follows:

From where is it derived concerning one who purchases a field from his father, “and his father died and afterward he dedicated it”—from where is it derived that it should be before him as an ancestral field,

since he inherited it before he dedicated it?

The verse therefore says:

And

if it is the field of his purchase, which is not from his ancestral field

he shall dedicate it, etc.” It has the law of an acquired field, and according to Rabbi Meir we expound it as follows:

A field that is not

literally

an ancestral field

at the time of dedication has the law of an acquired field;

this one, which is literally an ancestral field, is excluded

at the time of dedication [and he does not expound, like Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, that the verse comes to exclude even a field that was “fit,” at the time of dedication, to be an ancestral field].

And we ask:

Shall we say

that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, who hold that the verse comes to teach concerning a field “that he inherited after he dedicated it,” and not concerning a field “that he dedicated after he inherited it,” since they hold that no verse is needed for the latter, and necessarily “which is not from his ancestral field” comes to teach even concerning a field that he inherited after he dedicated it,

differ on this point

with Rabbi Meir, who holds that a verse is needed even for “he dedicated it after he inherited it”:

for Rabbi Meir holds: acquisition of produce

that the son had when he purchased it from his father [for since it returns to his father in the Jubilee, he has only acquisition of produce]

is considered like ownership of the substance,

as though it were entirely acquired by him. It follows that when his father died, his father's inheritance added nothing to him in the ownership of the field, for it was already acquired by him from the outset. And if so, if the Torah had not taught us that it becomes for him an ancestral field through his father's death, we would have said that it was still an acquired field—even though his father died before he dedicated it. Therefore Rabbi Meir holds that we have a source only to include this novelty, and there is no source to teach that even if his father died after the dedication, it is an ancestral field from now.

But

Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon

who hold that the verse is not needed to teach us that it becomes an ancestral field for the son if his father died and he inherited it before he dedicated it,

hold: the acquisition of the fruits

which the son had when he acquired it from his father

is not deemed acquisition of the body; it follows that when his father died, an acquisition of the body was added to him through his father's inheritance of the field. And if so, it is obvious that it is an ancestral field for him, and necessarily the verse comes to include: his father died after he dedicated it.

it follows that when his father died, the son acquired ownership of the property itself in the field by virtue of inheriting it from his father. If so, it is obvious that it is an ancestral field for him, and necessarily the verse comes to include the case in which his father died after he had consecrated it.

And we resolve it:

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: Generally,

that is, in truth, even

for Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Judah, the acquisition of the fruits is deemed acquisition of the body,

and a verse is needed to teach us that if his father died before he dedicated it—and the son's acquisition was already like acquisition of the body—it becomes for him, through his father's inheritance, an ancestral field.