Arakhin 29a (כט.) — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

The Sages taught: The consecrated property designated for the priests has no redemption

by giving its value in its place,

but they give

the consecrated property itself

to a priest.

Consecrated property

that is given to the priests:

As long as it is in the owner’s possession,

as he has not yet given it to a priest,

it is like consecrated property in every respect,

and misuse applies to it if one uses it or derives benefit from it,

as it is stated: “Every consecrated property in Israel shall be most holy to the Lord.”

Once he gives it to a priest, it is like non-sacred property in every respect,

and like any other property of the priest,

as it is stated: “Every consecrated property in Israel shall be yours.”

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: Unspecified consecrated property is for the repair of the Temple,

and so on; and the Sages say: Unspecified consecrated property is for the priests, and so on.

And we raise an objection:

Granted,

the position of

the Sages

is understood,

as they explicitly explain their reasoning

from the verse: “Like the field of the consecrated property, its possession shall be the priest’s.”

But as for the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira,

that is, they also address the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda, who derived from the verse “Every consecrated property is most holy to the Lord” that unspecified consecrated property is not for the priests but for the repair of the Temple; and the Sages rejected this derivation, saying that the verse comes to teach that consecration can take effect upon offerings.

But Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira—this verse, “Like the field of the consecrated property,”

“its possession shall be the priest’s,” from which the Sages learned that unspecified consecrated property is for the priests—

what does he do with it?!

For Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, according to his view, did not explain what this verse comes to teach us.

And we answer:

He requires it

—Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira requires this verse—

for that which was taught

with regard to an ancestral field that an Israelite consecrated and did not redeem from its consecration [or that another person redeemed from its consecration]: “And the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy to the Lord,

like the field of the consecrated property,”

which is given to the priests; and this field too

shall belong to a priest,

and the priest to whom it belongs shall regard it as though it were

“his possession.” What does the verse teach

by saying “like the field of the consecrated property”?

It teaches:

From where do we know that a priest who consecrated his field of consecrated property

[from the consecrated property designated for the priests], which an Israelite had consecrated and this priest received, and since it became for him like an ancestral field of an Israelite, if he consecrated it and did not redeem it, it is subject to the law that it leaves for the priests in the Jubilee,

that he may not say: Since it leaves for the priests, and it is now in the Jubilee

in my possession,

under my control,

as I possess it [for the Temple treasurer did not take possession of it, as stated in the Shita Mekubetzet]; and therefore

let it be mine

alone, since I am a priest!

And it follows

by a kal va-chomer that it should be mine: If

with regard to another’s property,

an Israelite’s ancestral field that he consecrated,

I acquire

it in the Jubilee together with the other priests,

is it not all the more so with regard to my own property

that I should acquire it and it should be mine alone?!

The verse therefore states: “Like the field of the consecrated property, its possession shall be the priest’s.”

And why did the Torah write “like the field of the consecrated property”?

What, after all, have we learned from the field of consecrated property? From now on, this

—the priest’s field of consecrated property—

comes to teach

about an ancestral field,

and it is found to be learned

from the ancestral field; and this is what it teaches:

It equates his field of consecrated property

that came to the priest through an Israelite’s consecrated property

with an ancestral field of an Israelite

that he consecrated and the priest redeemed from its consecration.

Just as an Israelite’s ancestral field

that an Israelite consecrated and the priest redeemed

leaves his possession

—the priest’s possession—in the Jubilee,

and is divided among the priests,

as is derived from the earlier verse,

so too his field of consecrated property

belonging to a priest, which he acquired from an Israelite’s consecrated property when it went out to the priests, and which he consecrated,

leaves his possession

in the Jubilee

and is divided among his fellow priests!

And he takes his share, like the other priests of the watch whose week the Jubilee encountered.

This beraita is also taught at the end of the tractate, where the Gemara discusses it.

And we raise an objection:

But the other one,

the Sages, who expound “like the field of the consecrated property” to teach that unspecified consecrated property is for the priests—how do they know that a priest who consecrated his field of consecrated property, which he received from an Israelite, leaves it for all the priests in the Jubilee?

And we answer: They derive this

from “consecrated property” and “the consecrated property”!

The definite article in the verse “like the consecrated property” is superfluous and comes to teach that a field of consecrated property consecrated by a priest leaves for all the priests.

And we raise an objection:

But the other one,

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, who does not need the extra definite article to teach that it leaves for all the priests, as he derives this from the main wording of the verse—what does he expound from the definite article?

And we answer:

“Consecrated property” and “the consecrated property” do not indicate a derivation to him

of any kind.

We further raise an objection:

And Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira,

who derived from “Every consecrated property is most holy to the Lord” that unspecified consecrated property is for the repair of the Temple,

that consecrated property takes effect

upon

most holy offerings and lesser sanctity offerings—from where does he derive this?

For it is impossible to derive this from the verse “Every consecrated property, etc.” as the Sages do, since he needs that verse to teach that unspecified consecrated property is for the repair of the Temple.

And we answer:

He holds

—Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira holds—

in accordance with Rabbi Yishmael,

who derives that consecrated property takes effect upon offerings from another verse, in the following Mishna.

Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira,

that unspecified consecrated property is for the repair of the Temple.

And we are astonished:

But Rav,

how did he

abandon the Sages

who hold that unspecified consecrated property is for the priests,

and act in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira?!

For we have an established principle that when an individual and the majority disagree, the halakha follows the majority.

And we answer: In a

beraita it is taught conversely:

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: Unspecified consecrated property is for the priests; and the Sages say: Unspecified consecrated property is for the repair of the Temple. And Rav, who ruled that unspecified consecrated property is for the repair of the Temple, follows the Sages in the beraita.

And we are astonished: Ultimately, this difficulty still applies to Rav: How did he

abandon the Mishna

in which we learned that the Sages hold that unspecified consecrated property is for the priests,

and act in accordance with the beraita?!

And we answer:

Rav,

in the

Mishna too taught it conversely,

and Rav’s statement accords with the Sages in the Mishna.

And we are astonished: From where did Rav have the authority to reverse the wording of the Mishna? If it is because this is how it is explained in the beraita,

what did you see

—Rav—

that you reversed the Mishna on account of

[under the influence of] the

beraita?

On the contrary,

reverse the beraita on account of the Mishna!

And we answer: The fact that Rav taught the Mishna with its wording reversed was not on account of the beraita. Rather,

Rav had learned his tradition

from his teacher to teach the Mishna with its wording reversed.

And we are astonished:

If so,

if the Sages’ position is that unspecified consecrated property is for the repair of the Temple, and Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira’s position is that it is for the priests, how could Rav say that the halakha is

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira

to teach that unspecified consecrated property is for the repair of the Temple? He should have said,

the halakha is in accordance with the Sages,

if that is what Rav intended to say!

And we answer:

This is what Rav meant:

Rav said:

According to the way you have reversed and taught it,

that is, according to the way you reverse the Mishna and teach it, Rabbi

Yehuda ben Beteira

is the one who says that unspecified consecrated property is for the repair of the Temple, in your view;

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira!

There was a certain man who consecrated all his property

without specifying [he said: “My property is consecrated”]

in Pumbedita. He came

—the one who consecrated it—

before Rav Yehuda, who said to him: Take four zuz

to redeem the “consecration” that took effect upon your property,

and remove the consecration from it

by transferring the sanctity from your property,

and throw them into the river

[that is, throw the four zuz into the river], since it is forbidden to use them, and at this time there is no consecration for the repair of the Temple to which to give them,

and let

the property

be permitted to you!

And we explain:

Apparently, he holds

Rav Yehuda

that unspecified consecrated property is for the repair of the Temple!

For if it were for the priests, it could not be redeemed.

And we are astonished:

In accordance with whom

does Rav Yehuda hold when he instructed him to redeem all the property for only four zuz? Necessarily,

he holds like Shmuel,

that is what he holds,

as Shmuel said:

Shmuel said:

Consecrated property worth one hundred maneh that one redeemed with an item worth one peruta is redeemed!

But consider:

I can say that Shmuel said

with regard to the wording

“that one redeemed,”

that this is valid after the fact; but

did he say this applies initially?

How, then, did Rav Yehuda instruct him to do so initially?!

And we answer:

This applies

to the rule that one may not initially redeem consecrated property worth one hundred maneh for one peruta:

when the Temple is standing,

because of the loss to consecrated property. But at this time,

when there is no Temple whose repairs require funding,

even initially

one may redeem it!

We nevertheless continue to question:

If so,

since at this time it is unnecessary to redeem it at its full value, why did Rav Yehuda say to redeem it for four zuz?

Even one peruta too

should suffice?

And we answer:

To publicize the matter,

that he is redeeming it; therefore he required redemption with four zuz, which is a significant sum—Rabbeinu Gershom.

Ulla said: Had I been there

[had I been present there] during that incident in Pumbedita, where the man had consecrated all his property without specifying,

I would have given all of them

—the property—

to the priests 37 .

And we explain:

Apparently, Ulla holds: Unspecified consecrated property is for the priests.

And we challenge Rav Yehuda and Ulla:

Meytivi:

a.

There is no

acquisition of

a Hebrew slave except when the Jubilee is in effect, as it is stated

in the passage concerning a Hebrew slave:

“He shall serve you until the year of the Jubilee,”

which teaches that the passage speaks of a time when the Jubilee is in effect.

b.

And there is no

sale of

an ancestral field in effect

with regard to the buyer’s being able to redeem it from the seller by deducting money [the total sale price is calculated and divided by the number of years from the sale until the Jubilee; the seller deducts from the sale price that he returns the amount corresponding to the years that passed from the sale until the redemption, and returns for each year remaining until the Jubilee the sum obtained through this division], against the will of the buyer,

except when the Jubilee is in effect, as it is stated

in the passage concerning the sale of an ancestral field:

“And it shall go out in the Jubilee and return to his possession.”

Likewise, the law of the consecration of an ancestral field does not apply—even while the Temple is standing, with regard to the laws specific to the consecration of an ancestral field—except when the Jubilee is in effect. If all its inhabitants are not present in the Land of Israel—for example, when Sennacherib exiled two tribes and half of another tribe—the Jubilee is not in effect, and the law of the consecration of an ancestral field does not apply.

c.

The houses of walled cities are not governed

by the law that the seller of a house in a city surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua son of Nun can redeem the house from the buyer—even against his will—within one year of the sale,

except when the Jubilee is in effect, as it is stated

in the passage concerning the sale of houses in walled cities:

“It shall not go out in the Jubilee,”

which implies that the Jubilee is in effect.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says

[and no one disputes him]:

d.

There is no law of a field of consecrated property

—whether for the priests or for the repair of the Temple—

except when the Jubilee is in effect, as it is stated: “And the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy to the Lord, like the field of the consecrated property,”

and they expound: The law of a field of consecrated property applies only at a time when “when it goes out in the Jubilee” is applicable.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says

[and no one disputes him]:

e.

There is no law of a resident alien

[a gentile who accepted upon himself not to worship idolatry, but eats unslaughtered carcasses and the like]

in effect

with regard to the mitzva to sustain him ,

except when the Jubilee is in effect. Rav Beivai said: What is the reason

that the law of a resident alien applies only when the Jubilee is in effect?

It is derived

by a

verbal analogy

from the word “good” written in the passage “You shall not hand over a slave [who is a resident alien] to his master.” From the word

“good”

written in the passage concerning a Hebrew slave:

Here it is written,

in the passage concerning a Hebrew slave,

“For it is good for him with you,” and there it is written

concerning a resident-alien slave: “You shall not hand him over, etc.; he shall dwell with you in your midst,

for it is good for him; you shall not wrong him,”

and just as the law of a Hebrew slave applies only when the Jubilee is in effect, so too the law of a resident alien. [Rashi explains that the derivation is from “with you,” which is written concerning a Hebrew slave, and “with you he shall dwell in your midst, etc.,” which is written concerning a resident alien.]

From this beraita—which states that the law of a field of consecrated property does not apply when the Jubilee is not in effect—the Gemara raises a difficulty against Rav Yehuda and Ulla, concerning the incident in Pumbedita, where they applied the law of consecrated property in their time, when the Jubilee was not in effect.

And we answer:

It is not difficult

for Rav Yehuda and Ulla!

This

statement that the law of consecrated property does not apply when the Jubilee is not in effect refers

to real property,

about which it is written, “when it goes out in the Jubilee, etc., like the field of the consecrated property, etc.”

That

which Rav Yehuda and Ulla hold, namely, that the law of consecrated property applies at this time, refers

to movable property.

And we are astonished:

But the incident in Pumbedita also involved real property,

for land was included among his possessions, and they ruled that the consecration took effect upon all of them; yet surely the law of consecrated property does not apply to land at this time?!

And we answer:

The real property outside Eretz Yisrael

that was consecrated—as in the incident that occurred in Pumbedita in Babylonia—

is considered like movable property of Eretz Yisrael,

upon which consecration takes effect even when the Jubilee is not in effect.

Mishna:

Rabbi Yishmael says: One verse states:

“Every firstborn that is born, etc.”

“You shall consecrate”

to the Lord your God,

and another verse states: “He shall not consecrate”

[“But a firstborn that is born among cattle to the Lord, no man shall consecrate it”].

It is impossible to say, “You shall consecrate”! For it has already been stated, “He shall not consecrate.” It is impossible to say, “He shall not consecrate”! For it has already been stated, “You shall consecrate.” How is this resolved? You may consecrate it as a “consecration

of enhanced value,”

so that if one consecrated the firstborn as consecrated property, the consecration takes effect in the sense that he must “enhance” [appraise] the firstborn monetarily and give its value to a priest, in accordance with what the Sages said in the preceding Mishna, based on the verse “Every consecrated property is most holy to the Lord.”

But you may not consecrate it as altar consecration,

for consecrating it for the altar cannot impose upon it the status of another offering.

Gemara:

And we raise an objection:

And the Sages,

who derived the law of a “consecration of enhanced value” from another verse in the preceding Mishna, what do they expound from the verses “You shall consecrate” and “You shall not consecrate” stated with regard to the firstborn? And we answer: a.

“You shall not consecrate” is needed for the prohibition,

that one who designates a firstborn for another offering violates this prohibition, as is explained by Maimonides [Laws of Substitution 4:11], that a general law is derived from here: It is forbidden to consecrate one offering for another offering.

b.

“The phrase ‘you shall dedicate’ is needed for that which was taught in a beraita: From where is it derived that one who has a firstborn born in his herd is commanded to dedicate it

as a firstborn?

As it is stated: “

Every firstborn that is born among your cattle and your flocks

the male you shall dedicate

to Hashem your God”!

And we challenge this:

And Rabbi Ishmael

from where does he derive that one must dedicate it as a firstborn, since he expounds the verse “you shall dedicate” as referring to dedication for a higher level of sanctity?

And we answer: Rabbi Ishmael could say:

If he does not dedicate it

then what?

Is it not holy?! Its sanctity comes from the womb! And since when he does not dedicate it—

it is holy, he does not need to dedicate it!

We will return to you, chapter “One Who Dedicates His Field.”