Arakhin 27a — the Talmud in English

And here

that Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon hold that the verse comes to teach us that even if his father died after he consecrated it, it is an ancestral field, this is because

the verse

afterward

found and expounded

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

the Merciful One should write: “And if he consecrates the field of his purchase, which is not his ancestral field, etc.”

without “of the field of his ancestral possession.”

Alternatively:

let it write

“which is not an ancestral field”

for these expressions would imply excluding a field that is an ancestral field at the time of the consecration.

What is “of the field

of his ancestral possession”? It necessarily comes to teach:

a field that is not fit

at the time of the consecration

to be an ancestral field

is subject to the law of a purchased field.

This one is excluded

which he inherited after he consecrated it,

which was fit

at the time of the consecration

to be

afterward

an ancestral field.

We learned in the Mishna:

The priests and Levites consecrate forever

and redeem forever.

And we raise an objection:

Granted, “they redeem

forever,”

it was necessary

for the Mishna to say that the Levites redeem forever, and it comes

to exclude Israelites, who do not redeem

the consecrated property

except until the Jubilee

when it leaves for the priests; and therefore

it teaches us that priests and Levites redeem forever

since their consecrated property does not leave at the Jubilee for the priests, but is redeemed for the owners.

But

that which is written that the priests and Levites

consecrate

forever,

why specifically priests and Levites

and do only they consecrate forever?

Even Israelites do so?

And we explain:

And if you would say

that this which is written, “they consecrate forever,” comes to innovate that they consecrate even

in the Jubilee year itself

unlike Israelites—?!

This works well according to Shmuel, who said

at the beginning of the chapter that, regarding Israelites,

in the Jubilee year itself it does not become consecrated; it teaches us

the Mishna

that priests and Levites consecrate

forever.

But according to Rav

who holds that Israelites also consecrate in the Jubilee year, it still will be difficult:

why specifically priests and Levites

who consecrate forever,

even Israelites do so?

And we resolve it; Rav can say to you:

And according to your reasoning

that you interpret “forever” as coming to teach us that they consecrate in the Jubilee year, the following written in the Mishna will be difficult for you:

“whether before the Jubilee or after the Jubilee”—why do I need this?

For the law is also so with Israelites?!

Rather

necessarily,

since the first clause taught

at the beginning of the chapter the expression

“before the Jubilee” [as it teaches, “One does not consecrate before the Jubilee less than two years”]

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 does not redeem after the Jubilee less than one year”],

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

it also taught the latter clause

in this wording,

“whether before the Jubilee or after the Jubilee.”

And since this is so, also regarding the question, “Why do I need ‘they consecrate forever’?” one can say:

and since the first clause taught

the laws of consecration and redemption, as it teaches:

“One does not consecrate” and “one does not redeem,” it also taught the latter clause

this wording,

“they consecrate and redeem,”

even though “they consecrate” is not a law particular to priests and Levites. Nevertheless, since it said “they redeem forever,” it also said “they consecrate forever,” as in the first clause.

We will return to you, chapter “One Does Not Consecrate.”

Mishna:

One who consecrates his field at a time

time]

when

the Jubilee is not practiced,

and then the law of “the consecrated ancestral field” does not apply, to be redeemed for the fixed sum of fifty sela for a beit kor,

they say to him

to the owner who consecrated it:

You open first

to say: For how much do you wish to redeem it? Because it is advantageous for the consecration that the owners redeem it, since

the owners give

an additional

fifth,

whereas every other person does not give an additional fifth

an additional

fifth.

An incident involving one who consecrated his field because of its poor quality,

for it was not worthwhile to retain it, since its expenses were greater than its improvement.

They said to him,

to the owner:

You open first,

for how much do you wish to redeem it?

He said: It is mine for one issar,

one alone.

Rabbi Yosei said: No,

the incident was not that

he said, “for one issar,” but rather

he said: It is mine

for an egg,

and he can redeem it with an egg,

for consecrated property is redeemed with money and with an object worth money. He said to him

the treasurer to the owner:

You have reached it

it is yours] for the issar or the egg that you said!

It is found

that the consecrator

loses an issar

or an egg, according to Rabbi Yosei], which he is obligated to give to the consecration since he undertook to redeem it,

and his field

is still

before him,

for his consecration did not benefit him by freeing him from the field.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

One who consecrates his field at a time

and so forth, they say to him, “You open first.”

And we object: Why is it written

“they say”,

which implies that they ask him to redeem it?!

But it was taught

in a beraita that they even

compel the owners to open first? And we answer:

compel the owner to open first? And we answer:

What does “they say” also mean,

as it is written in the Mishna?

They compel!

And if you wish, say: At first they say

to the owners,

and if he obeys

listens to our voice]

he obeys! And if not,

he does not listen,

they compel!

We learned in the Mishna: They say to him, “You open first,”

because the owners give a fifth.

And we wonder:

Why particularly

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

that the owners give a fifth? It can be derived

without this reason, but because

since it is dear

to him,

to the owner, for it was his,

more

he increases]

in its redemption.

And furthermore,

there is another reason that the owners should open, because

the mitzva of redemption is with the owner ,

and therefore it is fitting that he open first; why do we need the reason of the fifth?

And we answer: Indeed, so; but

it states one matter and another!

One matter: Since it is dearer to him, he redeems it.

And furthermore, it is the mitzva of redemption with the owner.

And furthermore: The owners give a fifth.

We learned in the Mishna:

An incident involving one who consecrated his field

and so forth: “It is mine for an issar”; Rabbi Yosei said, and so forth: “for an egg,” and so forth.

And we wonder:

Let us say

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

differ concerning this: Rabbi Yosei holds that an object worth money

such as an egg

is like money

and one redeems with it.

But the Rabbis hold: An object worth money is not like money,

and it is necessarily the case that he redeemed with an issar?!

But

it is impossible to say so, for

we hold that an object worth money is like money,

and we learn this [Bava Kamma 7a] from the verse written concerning damages, “he shall restore” money to its owners, to include an object worth money as money; and the same applies to consecrated property? And we reject this:

Everyone agrees that an object worth money is like money! But here

the matter concerns an egg that is not worth four perutot,

they differ concerning redeeming with an object whose fifth does not contain

outside, which is a quarter of the principal]

an amount worth a peruta:

The first Tanna holds: We redeem with an issar, whose fifth contains an amount worth a peruta

with it, but with an egg, whose fifth does not contain an amount worth a peruta, we do not.

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

for although its fifth does not contain an amount worth a peruta, this is not a deficiency.

We learned in the Mishna:

He said to him, “You have reached it”; it is found that he loses an “issar,” and his field is before him.

And we explain: The

anonymous statement

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

according to the Rabbis,

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

Mishna:

If one

of those who come to redeem consecrated land [at a time when the Jubilee is not practiced] said:

“It is mine for ten sela;” and one said, “for twenty,” and one said, “for thirty,” and one said, “for forty,” and one said, “for fifty.”

And

the one of fifty retracted,

the one who said forty redeems the land, and

they take as collateral

for the consecration

from the assets

of the one who said fifty

ten

sela, which he caused the consecration to lose by his retraction.

If he retracted,

also

the one of forty,

the one who said thirty redeems the land, and

they take as collateral from his assets

of the owner of forty

ten,

and together with the ten taken as collateral from the owner of fifty, the consecration has fifty.

If he retracted,

also

the one of thirty, they take as collateral from his assets

of the owner of thirty

ten,

which are additional to the preceding twenty, and the one of twenty redeems, and the consecration has fifty.

If he retracted,

also

the one of twenty, they take as collateral from his assets

of the owner of twenty

ten,

and the one of ten redeems, and the consecration has fifty.

If he retracted,

also

the one of ten, they sell it at its value

which is less than ten,

and they collect from

the owner of

the ten the remainder

to complete ten; and together with what they take as collateral from the others who retracted, the consecration has fifty.

If

the owners said

that they wished to purchase it

for twenty, and every other person,

that is, one of all the other people,

said

also

“for twenty,” the owners take precedence, because

they add a fifth.

And if

one said

after the owners had said twenty:

“It is mine for twenty-one,”

which is more than what the owners give as principal and less than what they give together with the fifth, which is twenty-five sela, since it is less than the owners’ principal and fifth, he cannot be given the field,