Arakhin 26b (כו:) — the Talmud in English

It was raised as a question:

According to Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that even after the first Jubilee the field remains in the possession of the Temple treasury, what is the law regarding the redemption by the

owner in the second Jubilee?

And this is what we are asking: Is he

like another person

who redeems from the Temple treasury,

whose money

is not transformed into a field of ancestral possession for him, and the field leaves his possession and goes to the priests at the Jubilee?

Or is that not so,

but is he like the owner in the first Jubilee? Just as in the first Jubilee the field is redeemed by the owner and becomes for him a field of ancestral possession and does not go to the priests, so too in the second Jubilee the owners may redeem it and it returns to them.

And we resolve the matter:

Come and hear:

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

“he shall not be redeemed

anymore.” And we learned: Once the Jubilee has arrived, the owner can no longer redeem the field so that it will again be a field of ancestral possession in his possession and not leave his possession for the priests.

One might

say that this means that

it may not be redeemed

by him even

so that it will be before him

as the owner

as a purchased field,

which is acquired from the Temple treasury and leaves the purchaser’s possession for the priests at the Jubilee—that is, he cannot redeem it completely.

The verse therefore states:

“He shall not be redeemed

anymore,”

whereas it could have stated merely “he shall not be redeemed,” to teach:

In the manner in which it was

an ancestral field,

it may not be redeemed,

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

But it may be redeemed

by the owner

so that it will be before him as a purchased field,

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

And we explain the beraita:

When—at what time did we come to include the owner’s redemption, so that the field would be before him as a purchased field?

at what time did we come to include redemption by the owners, so that the field is considered for them like an acquired field?

If you say that this is in the first Jubilee,

before the Jubilee year arrived, this is impossible.

For why

would we have said that

it may not be redeemed,

when even

it would also be a field of ancestral possession

when redeemed by the owner, before the first Jubilee year?!

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

we came to include redemption by the owners

in the second Jubilee

before the second Jubilee year arrived. At that point, it may not be redeemed so as to become a field of ancestral possession for them, since it is written, “he shall not be redeemed”; and it is precisely in this regard that the verse teaches that, nevertheless, it may be redeemed so that it becomes for the owners a purchased field.

We further explain:

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

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

If it is according to Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon,

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

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

who expounds it this way, as according to him the field remains in the possession of the Temple treasury in the second Jubilee?

And now we resolve the question:

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

since we said that it cannot be redeemed by them so as to become a field of ancestral possession.

And we reject this:

But can you understand it

to be the meaning of the beraita as we explained?! If so,

what do Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon,

who hold that the field leaves the possession of the Temple treasury for the priests already in the first Jubilee, and cannot expound the superfluous word “anymore” as we did,

expound from this word “anymore”?!

We are forced to explain the intent of the beraita differently, and the proposed resolution of the question is rejected.

And now we explain a different interpretation of the beraita:

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

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

And the priest consecrated it

after the Jubilee,

and the original owners

came

to redeem it

like any other person.

It might enter your mind to say that without the additional teaching of the word “anymore,”

if not for the inclusion derived from the word “further,” that

he may not redeem it

at all, even

so that it will be

for them

as a purchased field,

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

The verse therefore states: “He shall not be redeemed

“He shall not be redeemed”

anymore” in the second Jubilee, to teach:

in the second Jubilee, teaching:

In the manner in which it was

a field of ancestral possession—that is, it does not leave the owner’s possession for the priests—

it may not be redeemed, but it may be redeemed

even by the original owners

so that it will be before him as a purchased field,

and it will go to the priests.

And we support this interpretation:

And it was taught

in a beraita: It is written, with regard to a purchased field acquired from the owner of the ancestral field, which the purchaser consecrated and another person redeemed from the Temple treasury,

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

understand the verse to mean that

it will return to the treasurer from whom he purchased it

with the money he gave to the Temple treasury?

The verse therefore states: “To the one to whom the ancestral property of the land belongs,”

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

Let

the verse

say, “to the one to whom the ancestral property of the land belongs,”

and that would suffice.

Why then must it state: “To the one from whom he purchased it

”? To teach:

A field

of ancestral possession

that went to the priests

at the Jubilee,

and a priest sold it,

having received it from the Temple treasury,

and the purchaser consecrated it,

and it is, with regard to him, a purchased field,

and another person redeemed it

from the Temple treasury—and in every case of the consecration of a purchased field, once the Jubilee arrives it returns to the owner of the ancestral field. If so,

one might

say that it returns to the original owners,

the verse therefore states: The field shall return

“The field shall return”

“to the one from whom he ‘purchased it”, and it is impossible to interpret this as referring 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, for it is his ancestral field “now.”

from him. It cannot be explained as referring to the first Israelite owner 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 it is now an ancestral field for that priest.

We have therefore learned that since the original owners did not redeem the field in the first Jubilee and it went to a priest—and he sold it—it no longer returns to them as a field of ancestral possession through the return of the Jubilee. This supports what was explained in the first beraita: Once the field went to a priest and he consecrated it, it no longer returns to the original owners as a field of ancestral possession through redemption, based on the verse “he shall not be redeemed.”

And we explain:

And it was necessary

also

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

so that a field of ancestral possession that went to the priests at the Jubilee would not return to the original owners as their field of ancestral possession;

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

so that the field that went to the priests would not return to the original owners through redemption to become their field of ancestral possession.

And the reason is:

For if the Merciful One had written, “he shall not be redeemed,”

stating that this refers to a field that the priest “consecrated,” we would have said that specifically in this case it does not return to the original owners as their field of ancestral possession, since

it does not return at all—that is, the law requiring its return to the priest who is its owner of the ancestral field has already been removed, for a consecrated ancestral field does not return at the Jubilee. Therefore it does not return to the original owners as an ancestral field.

But

But here,

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

which does return—that is, it is subject to the law of returning at the Jubilee to the owner of the ancestral field, like any other purchased field that was consecrated—if so,

it should return to the first master,

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, but 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,”

stating that this concerns return “at the Jubilee,” we would have said that specifically here it does not return to the first owner of the ancestral field, since

the owners did not give money

for the field to the Temple treasury; we view it as returning to him without payment, like other fields that leave their owner’s possession at the Jubilee. Therefore it does not return to the first owner of the ancestral field, but to the priest who is the current owner of the ancestral field.

But here,

in the verse “he shall not be redeemed,” which concerns its return as a field of ancestral possession through redemption,

the original owners did give

the

money

for the field to the Temple treasury. If so,

it should remain in their possession

and be their field of ancestral possession, which does not leave their possession at the Jubilee. Therefore,

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

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

We further explain:

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

alone

and had not written

“he shall not be redeemed

anymore,”

I would have said that he may not redeem it at all

from the Temple treasury—the field that went to the priests and the priest consecrated—through the original owners, even so that it would be their purchased field, as with other redeemers. Therefore,

the Merciful One wrote “anymore,”

to teach:

In the manner in which it was

a field of ancestral possession for the original owners,

it may not be redeemed, but it may be redeemed so that it will be before him

as one of the original owners

as a purchased field.

And now we return to our question: Since the interpretation of the beraita concerning “he shall not be redeemed” was rejected,

what is the conclusion

regarding the uncertainty whether the owner’s redemption in the second Jubilee is like that of another person, in which case the field goes to the priests, or whether it becomes their field of ancestral possession and does not go 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 to the priests at the Jubilee,

indicating that they are like another person.

And we are surprised:

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: But we

in our Mishna

did not learn this,

for we learned:

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

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

And we answer:

He said to him,

Rav Ashi said to Ravina: The inference that the word “another” excludes owners who redeemed it refers to owners who redeemed it in the first Jubilee. But

the owners in the second Jubilee

also

are considered like another person

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

There are those who say

that the matter is resolved as follows:

Come and hear:

Rabbi Eliezer says: If the owners redeemed it

in the

second Jubilee, it does not go to the priests at the Jubilee,

for the owners in the second Jubilee are like the owners in the first Jubilee: it becomes their ancestral possession and does not go to the priests.

And according to this version,

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 its possession until another person redeems it,

which implies another person and not the owners.

He said to him,

Rav Ashi said to Ravina:

If you derive it from the Mishna,

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

I might have said that the owners in the second Jubilee are considered like another person

and are included in the phrase “another person redeems it.” Therefore,

it teaches us

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

Mishna:

One who inherits a field from his father or from his other heirs—that is a field of ancestral possession, which, if he consecrates it, is redeemed for fifty sela per beit kor, and which goes to the priests at the Jubilee.

One who purchases his father’s field of ancestral possession, or that of his other heirs: it returns to his father at the Jubilee, and his acquisition of it is only an acquisition of the produce, while ownership of the substance belongs to his father, as with other sellers of a field of ancestral possession. And if he consecrated it, it is included among consecrated purchased fields, which are redeemed from the Temple treasury according to their value, and it does not go to the priests at the Jubilee; rather, it returns to his father at the Jubilee.

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

and he inherits it,

and afterward consecrates it, it is like a field of ancestral possession,

and it is redeemed for fifty sela, and it goes to the priests at the Jubilee.

And if he

consecrated it and afterward his father died, it is like a purchased field,

since at the time of its consecration it was in his possession as a purchased field, and it is likewise redeemed according to its value. If another person redeemed it from the Temple treasury, it returns to the son at the Jubilee and does not go to the priests, since at the time he consecrated it, its substance did not belong to him in a manner that would cause it to return to his father at the Jubilee. He is like one who consecrates a purchased field: if another person redeems it, it returns to the owner of the ancestral field at the Jubilee. Here, the son inherited the right that had belonged to his father, and it returns to him at the Jubilee.

This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon say:

One who purchases a field from his father, consecrates it, and afterward his father dies,

it is

from now

like a field of ancestral possession,

and it is redeemed for fifty sela, and it goes to the priests at the Jubilee.

As it is stated: “And if he consecrates a field that he purchased, which is not from his field of ancestral possession,”

etc.—it has the law of a purchased field. And we expound:

A field that is not fit

at the time of its consecration

to be a field of ancestral possession

is what has the status of a purchased field;

this one, which is fit

at the time of its consecration

to be a field of ancestral possession, is excluded,

since it is fit to become a field of ancestral possession when his father dies. This teaches that once his father dies, it does not have the law of a purchased field, but rather that of a field of ancestral possession.

A purchased field

that the purchaser consecrated

does not

go to the priests at the Jubilee, for no person

can consecrate

something that does not belong to him

after the Jubilee, since this field belonged to him only until the Jubilee; at the Jubilee it returns to the one who sold it to him, who is its owner of the ancestral field.

The priests and Levites may consecrate

fields in the cities of the Levites that they received in the Land

forever, and they may redeem

the priests and Levites fields in their cities

forever, both before the Jubilee and after the Jubilee,

and the field returns to become their field of ancestral possession, as it is stated: “The redemption of the Levites shall be forever.”

Gemara:

The Sages taught: From where is it derived that one who purchases a field from his father, “consecrates it and afterward his father dies”—from where is it derived that it shall be before him

from now

as a field of ancestral possession? The verse states: “And if he consecrates a field that he purchased, which is not from his field of ancestral possession,”

etc.—it has the law of a purchased field. And we expound:

A field that is not fit

at the time of its consecration

to be a field of ancestral possession

has the law of a purchased field;

this one, which is fit

at the time of its consecration

to be a field of ancestral possession—this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Meir says,

they expound as follows:

From where is it derived that one who purchases a field from his father, “his father dies and afterward he consecrates it”—from where is it derived that it shall be before him as a field of ancestral possession,

since he inherited it before he consecrated it?

The verse states:

“And

if he consecrates a field that he purchased, which is not from his field of ancestral possession,”

etc.—it has the law of a purchased field. And according to Rabbi Meir we expound it as follows:

A field that is not

literally

a field of ancestral possession

at the time of its consecration has the law of a purchased field;

this one, which is literally a field of ancestral possession,

at the time of its consecration, is excluded [and he does not expound it as Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon do, that the verse comes to exclude even a field that is “fit,” at the time of its consecration, to be a field of ancestral possession].

And we ask:

Shall we say that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, who hold that the verse comes to teach about a field that he “inherited after he consecrated it,” and not about a field that he “consecrated after he inherited it,” since they hold that no verse is needed for the latter, and necessarily “which is not from his field of ancestral possession” comes to teach even about a field that he inherited after consecrating it,

that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, who hold that the verse teaches about a field that he “inherited after consecrating it,” and not about a field that he “consecrated after inheriting it,” since they hold that no verse is needed for the latter case—and therefore “which is not from his ancestral field” must teach even about a field that he inherited after consecrating it—

differ on this point

from Rabbi Meir, who holds that a verse is needed even for a field that he consecrated after inheriting it:

Rabbi Meir holds that an acquisition of produce

which the son had when he purchased the field from his father [since, as it returns to his father at the Jubilee, he possesses only an acquisition of the produce]

is considered like ownership of the substance,

as though it were completely acquired by him. It follows that when his father died, his father’s inheritance added nothing to his ownership of the field, since it had already been acquired by him from the outset. If so, had the Torah not taught us that through his father’s death it becomes a field of ancestral possession for him, we would have said that it remains a purchased field—even though his father died before he consecrated it. Therefore Rabbi Meir holds that we have a source only for this novel ruling, and there is no source to teach that even when his father died after the consecration, it is a field of ancestral possession from now on.

However,

Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon

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

hold: usufructuary ownership

that the son had when he purchased it from his father

is not considered like ownership of the property itself;

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 this:

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: Generally,

that is, in truth, even

according to Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Judah, usufructuary ownership is considered like ownership of the property itself,

and a verse is needed to teach us that if his father died before he consecrated it—and the son's ownership was already like ownership of the property itself—it becomes an ancestral field for him through inheriting it from his father.