Arakhin 34a (לד.) — the Talmud in English

For example, when they fell to the Levites

by lot, when the Levitical cities were apportioned by his agency

they

are the cities

and their open areas,

that is, together with their walls — Shita Mekubbetzet manuscript.

And we raise an objection to this: How is it possible for the Levites to sell a house in these walled cities, such that the beraita needed to exclude Levites from the law of “houses of walled cities

? And were they not destined

to have their walls

demolished

since the walls were not to remain, as the Levitical cities were not to be made into fortified settlements and large cities?!

And we answer:

Rav Ashi said:

Even though their walls were destined to be demolished,

it was necessary

for the beraita to teach the law of “eternal redemption,”

it might enter your mind to say: While they are still standing,

[until they are demolished],

if they are sold

[if they are sold],

they should become the permanent property of the purchaser

according to the law governing houses of walled cities;

it therefore teaches us

that the Levitical cities are not subject to the law governing houses of walled cities.

The Sages taught:

It is written with regard to a consecrated ancestral field: “And the field [which he consecrated and which was not redeemed by its owner, or which was redeemed by another] when it goes out in the Jubilee shall be holy to Hashem

as a field dedicated

[which is given to the priests; and this is a field that an Israelite dedicated as a priestly dedication]

to the priest shall be his ancestral property.” What is the meaning of the statement

“as a field dedicated,” which indicates that the field dedicated is intended to teach something about an ancestral field? What does it teach us?

From where is it derived that a priest who consecrated

a

field that he had dedicated

that an Israelite had dedicated and that this priest received as his portion together with the other priests,

should not say: Since it goes out

this field

to the priests

in the Jubilee if I do not redeem it [according to the law of a consecrated ancestral field, for a dedication that goes out to a priest becomes for him an “ancestral field,” as it is written: “As a field dedicated, to the priest shall be his ancestral property”],

and it is

now in the Jubilee

under my control

as I possess it [for the treasurer has not yet taken possession of it, Shita Mekubbetzet above 29b], and if so,

it shall be mine

since I am a priest!

And it is logical

that I should acquire it by means of a kal va-chomer:

In the case of another’s field

whose ancestral field he consecrated,

I acquire

it in the Jubilee together with the other priests;

in the case of my own field, is it not all the more so

that I should acquire it, so that it should belong to me alone?!

The verse states: “And the field when it goes out in the Jubilee shall be holy to Hashem, ‘as a field dedicated,’” and what have we learned from the field dedicated?! From now on! This

“as a field dedicated”

comes to teach

about an ancestral field,

and it follows that it is learned

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

It juxtaposes the field he dedicated

that came to the priest through a dedication

with the ancestral field of an Israelite

that he consecrated and that a priest redeemed from consecration.

Just as an Israelite’s ancestral field

that a priest redeemed

leaves his possession

in the Jubilee

and is apportioned among his fellow priests

and he does not acquire it alone, as is learned from the verse above, Leviticus 25,

so too the field he dedicated

of a priest, which he consecrated,

leaves his possession and is apportioned among his fellow priests!

And he takes his portion like the other priests of the priestly division that the Jubilee encountered.

The Master said: “And it is logical: In the case of another’s field”

that they consecrated as their ancestral field,

I acquire

it in the Jubilee, when it goes out to the priests; in the case of my own field, is it not all the more so?

And we raise an objection:

Are the cases comparable? There

in the case of another’s field,

he acquires merely

one portion, like his fellow priests, but

here

in the case of his own field, his claim is that he

takes all of it

for himself. How, then, can this be learned by means of a kal va-chomer? The principle of dayyo applies: The conclusion derived through an inference cannot be more stringent than the case from which it is derived. And we answer:

Rami bar Hama said: It was necessary

for a verse to state that he may not take all of it for himself, because

it might enter your mind to say: Since it is written, “And each man’s sacred offerings shall be his own,”

and we learned that when a priest is liable to bring a sin-offering or voluntarily brings a burnt-offering, he need not give it to the members of the priestly division, who would offer it and take the meat and hide; rather, he himself offers it, takes the hide, and eats the meat. If so, we would say:

This

field that the priest consecrated

also, like his sacred offerings,

of the priest

is comparable

and should not go out to the other priests. Therefore, the verse comes to teach that it does go out to the other priests and is not like his other sacred offerings [according to this answer, the kal va-chomer is not the primary reason, but this is; see Tosafot].

And we refute this:

Are they comparable

the field that he consecrated and his sacred offerings, such that a verse is needed to exclude it from the category of his other sacred offerings?!

His sacred offerings are not in his possession

and he does not acquire them because they belong to him; rather, he acquires them because he offers them, as the Torah granted the meat and hide to the priest who offers them.

Here,

with regard to his dedicated field,

it is in his possession

that is, you wished to say that he should receive all of it because it belongs to him, and not from the heavenly Table as compensation for service, as with his sacred offerings, where he takes the meat and hide because he performs the service and receives his compensation for that service.

Rather, Rav Naḥman said

a different explanation of the beraita: The verse “as a field dedicated” is needed not with regard to the field’s not going out to the priests, so that he would acquire it [as we explained until now], for this is not so; there is no basis for saying that. Rather,

it was necessary

to teach that the priest who consecrated his dedicated field cannot say, “It shall be mine,” by redeeming it even after the Jubilee; that is, it does not go out to the priests in the Jubilee so that he can redeem it forever [Zevach Todah]. And

it might enter your mind to say: Since it is written

with regard to the Levitical cities that their consecrated property can be redeemed forever [and does not go out of consecration to the priests as an Israelite’s field does], because of

“for it is an everlasting

ancestral possession for them,” we would say:

This too

the field that he received through a dedication

is his ancestral possession,

and its law should be like that of the Levitical cities, which can be redeemed forever.

It therefore teaches us

the juxtaposition by which the Torah juxtaposed a dedicated field with an Israelite’s ancestral field: A dedicated field too is apportioned among the priests. And it is written:

“His ancestral property”: His ancestral property

of a priest from the Levitical cities

does

fall within the category of “eternal redemption”;

his dedicated field

does not.

And this is how it is derived: “His ancestral property” comes to exclude, teaching that only a priest’s “ancestral property” has eternal redemption. Nevertheless, we still would not know to exclude his dedicated field, for his dedicated field is also the priest’s ancestral property. For this purpose, the juxtaposition between a dedicated field and an Israelite’s ancestral field is effective, distinguishing between a priest’s ancestral property and his dedicated field; for if the verse did not come to exclude his dedicated field, why did Scripture juxtapose them? [The Gemara’s conclusion is explained according to Tosafot and Tzon Kodashim, in the understanding of Rashi’s words.]

We shall return to you, chapter “One who sells his field,” and the tractate Arakhin is concluded.