Arakhin 34a — the Talmud in English

For example, when they fell to the Levites

to the Levites by lot, when the Levitical cities were apportioned through him

they

the cities

and their open spaces,

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

And we raise an objection concerning this: How is it possible that the Levites would sell a house in these walled cities [and that the baraita needed to exclude Levites from the law of “houses of walled cities”]

when they are destined

to their walls

to be dismantled,

the walls, since the Levitical cities are not made into fortified towers and large cities?!

And we answer:

Rav Ashi said:

Even though they are destined to dismantle their walls,

it was necessary

for the baraita to state “perpetual redemption,”

it might enter your mind to say: While they are being dismantled, they are being dismantled

[until they are dismantled],

if they are sold

[if they were sold],

they should be irrevocably acquired

according to the law of houses of walled cities,

it teaches us

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

The Sages taught:

It is written concerning the consecration of an ancestral field: “And the field [which he consecrated and did not redeem by means of the owners, or which was redeemed by another], when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy to the Lord”

“like a field of the ban”

[which is given to the priests. And this is a field concerning which an Israelite imposed a priests’ ban]

“to the priest shall be his ancestral holding.” What does the verse come to teach

“like a field of the ban,” implying that the field of the ban comes to teach concerning an ancestral field, and what does it teach us?

From where is it derived that a priest who consecrated

a field

of his ban

which an Israelite had imposed as a ban, and this priest received it in his share together with the rest of the 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 the consecration of an ancestral field, for the ban that goes out to a priest is his “ancestral field,” as it is written, “like a field of the ban, to the priest shall be his ancestral holding”],

and it is

now in the Jubilee

under my control,

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

it shall be mine,

since I am a priest!

And it is a law

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

In the case of that belonging to others,

who consecrated their ancestral field,

I acquire

it in the Jubilee together with the rest of the priests,

in the case of that belonging to myself, is it not all the more so

that I should acquire it, so that it should be mine alone?!

The verse comes to teach: “And the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy to the Lord, ‘like a field of the ban.’” And what have we learned from the field of the ban?! From now on! This is

“like a field of the ban”

which comes to teach

concerning an ancestral field,

and it is found that it is learned

from an ancestral field, and this is what it learns:

It compares his field of the ban

which came to the priest from the ban

to an ancestral field of an Israelite

who consecrated it, and a priest redeemed it from the consecration.

Just as an ancestral field of an Israelite

which a priest redeemed

goes out from under his control

in the Jubilee,

and is divided among his priestly brothers,

and he does not acquire it alone, as we learn from the verse above, 25:,

so too his field of the ban

of a priest, which he consecrated —

goes out from under his control and is divided among his priestly brothers!

And he takes his share like the other priests of the priestly division whom the Jubilee encountered.

The master said: “And it is a law; in the case of that belonging to others”

who consecrated their ancestral field

I acquire

it in the Jubilee, when it goes out to the priests; in the case of that belonging to myself, is it not all the more so?

And we raise an objection:

Are they comparable? There

in the case of that belonging to others,

he acquires in general

only one share like his priestly brothers, but

here,

in the case of that belonging to himself, his claim is that

he takes all of it

and how will you learn this by means of a kal va-chomer? For the principle is that what is derived by the argument cannot be more stringent than the case from which it is derived! And we answer:

Rami bar Hama said: It was necessary

for the verse to say 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 things shall be his”,

and we learned: A priest who is liable to bring a sin-offering or who volunteered a burnt-offering need not give them to the men of the priestly division, so that they would offer it and take the flesh and the hide; rather, he himself offers it, takes the hide, and eats the flesh. If so, we would say:

This

field that the priest consecrated

also, like his sacred things

of the priest

resembles

them, and it should not go out to the other priests. Therefore the verse comes to teach that it does go out to the other priests, and it is not like his other sacred things [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

a field that he consecrated — to his sacred things, such that a verse is needed to exclude it from being like his other sacred things?!

His sacred things are not in his possession,

and he does not acquire them because they are his, but because he offers them, for the Torah granted the flesh and the hide to the priest who offers them.

Here,

with regard to his field of the ban,

it is in his possession,

that is, you wished to say that because it is his he should receive all of it, and not from the table of the Most High as payment for service — like his sacred things, from which he takes the flesh and the hide by virtue of the fact that he performs the service and takes payment for his service.

Rather, Rav Nahman said,

another explanation of the baraita: The fact that the verse “like a field of the ban” is needed does not concern the matter that it does not go out to the priests and he acquires it [as we explained until now], for this is not so, since there is no basis at all for saying this. Rather,

it was necessary

to teach that the priest who consecrated his field of the ban cannot say “it shall be mine” by means of redemption even after the Jubilee; that is, that it should not go out in the Jubilee to the priests and that he redeem it forever [Zevah Todah]. And

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

concerning the Levitical cities, whose consecrated property is redeemed forever [and does not go out from consecration to the priests as does that of an Israelite], on account of

“for an ancestral holding

is it forever for them,” if so, we would say:

this too,

the field that he received from the ban

is his ancestral holding,

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

It teaches us

the comparison that the Torah made between a field of the ban and an ancestral field of an Israelite, that a field of the ban is also divided among the priests. And it is written

“his ancestral holding”: his ancestral holding

of a priest from the Levitical cities

does not

come within “perpetual redemption”;

his ban

does not. And this is how it is learned: “His ancestral holding” comes to exclude, for only the “ancestral holding” of a priest has perpetual redemption. Yet we still would not know to exclude his field of the ban, for his field of the ban is also the ancestral holding of a priest; and for this the comparison between a field of the ban and an ancestral field of an Israelite is useful, to distinguish between the ancestral holding of a priest and his ban. For if not, since the verse came to exclude his ban, why did it compare them? [The conclusion of the Gemara is explained according to Tosafot and Tzon Kodashim, in the understanding of Rashi’s words].

We have returned to you, chapter “One who sells his field,” and the tractate Arakhin has been concluded

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