Arakhin 27a (כז.) — the Talmud in English

And here,

the reason that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon hold that the verse comes to teach us that even if his father died after he dedicated it, it is an ancestral field is that

the verse

later

was found and expounded

from it that this, too, is considered an ancestral field. For if this were not so,

the Torah should have written: “And if he dedicates the field of his purchase, which is not his ancestral field, etc.”

without the words “from the field of his ancestral property.”

Alternatively:

it should have written

“which is not an ancestral field,”

as these expressions would have implied excluding a field that was an ancestral field at the time of its dedication.

What is the meaning of “from the field

of his ancestral property”? It necessarily comes to teach that

a field that is not fit

at the time of its dedication

to be an ancestral field

is subject to the law of a purchased field.

This one is excluded,

as he inherited it after dedicating it,

for it was fit

at the time of the dedication

to become

subsequently

an ancestral field.

We learned in the Mishna:

The kohanim and the Levites may dedicate property at all times

and may redeem it at all times.

And we raise a difficulty:

Granted, “they may redeem

it at all times,”

it was necessary

for the Mishna to state that the Levites may redeem it at all times, and this comes

to exclude Israelites, who do not redeem

the dedicated property

except until the Jubilee

when it passes to the kohanim. Therefore,

it teaches us that kohanim and Levites may redeem it at all times,

as their dedicated property does not pass at the Jubilee to the kohanim, but is redeemed by its owners.

But

with regard to what is written, that the kohanim and the Levites

“may dedicate

property at all times,”

why specifically kohanim and Levites

—are they the only ones who may dedicate property at all times?

Even Israelites may do so!

And we explain:

And if you would say

that the statement “may dedicate property at all times” comes to introduce the novel point that they may dedicate property even

in the Jubilee year itself,

unlike Israelites—

this works well according to Shmuel, who said

at the beginning of the chapter that, in the case of Israelites,

a dedication made in the Jubilee year itself does not take effect; it teaches us

that

kohanim and Levites may dedicate property

at all times.

But according to Rav,

who holds that Israelites may also dedicate property in the Jubilee year, the difficulty still remains:

why specifically kohanim and Levites

may dedicate property at all times—

even Israelites may do so!

And we resolve the difficulty: Rav could say to you:

And according to your reasoning,

that you interpret “at all times” as coming to teach that they may dedicate property in the Jubilee year, the wording of the Mishna

“both before the Jubilee and after the Jubilee”—why do I need it?

After all, the same law applies to Israelites as well!

Rather,

it must necessarily be that

since the tanna taught in the first clause

at the beginning of the chapter the expression

“before the Jubilee” [

as it teaches: “One may not dedicate property before the Jubilee if fewer than two years remain” ]

“and after the Jubilee” [

as it teaches: “One may not redeem property after the Jubilee if fewer than one year remains” ],

he also taught the latter clause

in this language:

“both before the Jubilee and after the Jubilee.”

And since that is the case, with regard to the question, “Why do I need ‘may dedicate property at all times’?” as well, one may say:

since the tanna taught in the first clause

the laws of dedication and redemption, as it teaches:

“One may not dedicate” and “one may not redeem,” he also taught the latter clause

in this language:

“may dedicate and may redeem,”

even though “may dedicate” is not a law unique to kohanim and Levites. Nevertheless, since it stated “may redeem at all times,” it also stated “may dedicate at all times,” paralleling the first clause.

The chapter “One Does Not Dedicate” is concluded.

Mishna:

If one consecrates his field at a time [when]

when

the Jubilee

is not in effect,

and therefore the law of “a consecrated ancestral field” being redeemed for the fixed amount of fifty sela for a beit kor does not apply,

they say to him,

to the owner who consecrated it:

“You speak first,”

saying: For how much do you wish to redeem it? This is because it is advantageous for the Temple treasury that the owners redeem it, since

the owners give

an additional

fifth,

whereas no other person gives

an additional

fifth.

There was an incident involving someone who consecrated his field because of its poor quality,

as it was not worthwhile to retain it, since its expenses exceeded its yield.

They said to him,

to the owner:

“You speak first,”

for how much do you wish to redeem it?

He said: “It is mine for one issar,”

one coin בלבד.

Rabbi Yosei said: “No,”

that is not how the incident occurred, that he

said, “for one issar,” but

he said: “It is mine

for an egg,”

and he could redeem it with an egg,

for a consecrated object may be redeemed with money or with an item of equivalent monetary value. He said to him

the treasurer to the owner:

“You have reached it,”

it is yours, for the issar or the egg you mentioned!

It turns out

that the one who consecrated it

loses an issar

or an egg, according to Rabbi Yosei, which he must give to the Temple treasury since he undertook to redeem it,

while his field

still remains

before him,

because his consecration did not enable him to rid himself of the field.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

“If one consecrates his field at a time

when, etc., they say to him: You speak first.”

And we raise a difficulty: Why does it say

“they say,”

which implies that they merely ask him to redeem it?

But it was taught

in a beraita that they even

compel

the owners to speak first? And we answer:

What does “they say” also

written in the Mishna mean?

“They compel!”

Alternatively: Initially they say

to the owners:

“And if you comply,” [i.e., listen to us,]

you comply!

“But if not,”

if you do not comply,

they compel you!

We learned in the Mishna: They say to him: You speak first,

because the owners give an additional fifth.

And we wonder:

Why specifically

does the Mishna give as the reason that they should speak first

“because the owners give an additional fifth”? Is it not enough

without this reason, but rather because

since it is dearer

to him

the field is dearer to its owners, since it had been theirs,

he will increase

the redemption price more than another person and

redeem it?

Furthermore,

there is another reason that the owner should speak first: because

the mitzva of redemption is incumbent upon the master .

Therefore, it is proper that he speak first; why do we need the reason of the additional fifth?

And we answer: Indeed, so; but

it states one reason and another!

One reason: Since the field is dearer to him, he will increase the price and redeem it.

And furthermore, the mitzva of redemption is incumbent upon the master.

And furthermore: The owners give an additional fifth.

We learned in the Mishna:

“There was an incident involving someone who consecrated his field

and so on: ‘It is mine for one issar’; Rabbi Yosei said, and so on: ‘for an egg,’ and so on.”

And we wonder:

Shall we say

that the first tanna, who holds that the owners said “for one issar,” and Rabbi Yosei, who holds that the owners said “for an egg,”

disagree about this: Rabbi Yosei holds that an item of equivalent monetary value

such as an egg

is like money

and one may redeem with it,

whereas the Rabbis hold that an item of equivalent monetary value is not like money,

and therefore the owners were necessarily redeeming it with an issar?

But

it is impossible to say this, since

we hold that an item of equivalent monetary value is like money,

as this is derived [Bava Kamma 7a] from the verse concerning damages, “he shall restore” money to its owner, which includes an item of equivalent monetary value as money; and the same applies to a consecrated object. And we reject this:

Everyone agrees that an item of equivalent monetary value is like money! But here

we are speaking of an egg that is not worth four perutot. They disagree concerning

redeeming with an item whose fifth does not contain

the value of one peruta [in addition, meaning one quarter of the principal]:

The first tanna holds: We redeem with an issar, whose fifth contains the value of one peruta

with it,

but with an egg, whose fifth does not contain the value of one peruta, we do not redeem.

And Rabbi Yosei holds: We redeem even with an egg,

for although its fifth does not contain the value of one peruta, this is not a deficiency.

We learned in the Mishna:

“He said to him: ‘You have reached it’; it turns out that he loses an ‘issar,’ while his field remains before him.”

And we explain: The

anonymous statement

of the Mishna, which mentions that he loses an issar, implying that the owners said “for an issar” and not “for an egg,” is

in accordance with the Rabbis,

and not with Rabbi Yosei, who holds that the owners said “for an egg.”

Mishna:

If one person said,

of those who came to redeem consecrated land [when the Jubilee is not in effect]:

“It is mine for ten sela,” and another said: “For twenty,” and another said: “For thirty,” and another said: “For forty,” and another said: “For fifty,”

and

the one who said fifty retracted,

the one who said forty redeems the land, and

they seize as collateral

for the Temple treasury

from the property

of the one who said fifty

ten

sela, the amount he caused the Temple treasury to lose by retracting.

If

also

the one who said forty retracts,

the one who said thirty redeems the land, and

they seize as collateral from the property

of the one who said forty

ten,

and together with the ten seized from the one who said fifty, the Temple treasury has fifty.

If

also

the one who said thirty retracts, they seize as collateral from the property

of the one who said thirty

ten,

which is in addition to the preceding twenty; the one who said twenty redeems it, and the Temple treasury has fifty.

If

also

the one who said twenty retracts, they seize as collateral from the property

of the one who said twenty

ten,

and the one who said ten redeems it, and the Temple treasury has fifty.

If

also

the one who said ten retracts, they sell it at its market value,

which is less than ten,

and they collect from

the owner of the

ten the remainder

to complete the ten; and together with what they seize from the others who retracted, the Temple treasury has fifty.

If

the owners say

that they wish to buy it

for twenty, and every other person

that is, one of all the other people

says

also

“for twenty,” the owners take precedence, because

they add a fifth.

And if

one person says

after the owners said twenty:

“It is mine for twenty-one,”

which is more than the owners offer as the principal, but less than what they offer together with the fifth, which is twenty-five sela, since he is offering less than the owners’ principal and fifth, it is impossible to give it to him,