Arakhin 25b

גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן:

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if one consecrated his ancestral field and his son redeemed it from the Temple treasury, the field returns to the original owner when the Jubilee arrives. By contrast, if another person redeemed it, the field is transferred to the priests during the Jubilee Year. With regard to this matter, the Sages taught a baraita analyzing the verse: “And if he will not redeem the field, or if he sold the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed anymore. But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy for the Lord, as a dedicated field; his ancestral possession shall be for the priest” (Leviticus 27:20–21).

״אִם לֹא יִגְאַל אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה״ — בְּעָלִים, ״וְאִם מָכַר אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה״ — גִּיזְבָּר.

The phrase “and if he will not redeem the field” is referring to a case where the owner did not redeem it and it remained in the possession of the Temple treasury, and the phrase “or if he sold the field” is referring to a situation where the Temple treasurer sold it to another person. The verse indicates that in both of these instances, possession of the field goes to the priests.

״לְאִישׁ אַחֵר״ — לְאַחֵר, וְלֹא לַבֵּן. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: לְאַחֵר וְלֹא לַבֵּן, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְאַחֵר וְלֹא לָאָח? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״אִישׁ״ — הֲרֵי אָח אָמוּר, הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״אַחֵר״ — וְלֹא לַבֵּן.

The baraita continues: “To another man,” indicates that the field is transferred to the priests during the Jubilee Year only if it had been sold to another, and not to the son of the one who consecrated it. The baraita asks: Do you say that the verse is referring to another and not to his son? Or perhaps the verse means only that it was sold to another and not to his brother? The baraita rejects this suggestion: When it says: “Man,” the brother is stated, i.e., he is included in the category of a man. How do I realize the meaning of: “Another man”? It must mean: Another, but not his son.

וּמָה רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַבֵּן וּלְהוֹצִיא אֶת הָאָח? מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי הַבֵּן, שֶׁכֵּן קָם תַּחַת אָבִיו לִיעִידָה וּלְעֶבֶד עִבְרִי.

The baraita asks: And what did you see to include the son in the same category as the father, and to exclude the brother? The baraita answers: I include the son, as he stands in place of his father with regard to designating a Hebrew maidservant as a wife for himself, in a case where the father purchased the Hebrew maidservant and designates her as a wife for his son, which he cannot do for his brother. And he also stands in place of his father with regard to a Hebrew slave, as when one inherits a Hebrew slave from his father, the slave is obligated to serve the son and does not go free, whereas if the deceased’s brother inherits the servant, he goes free.

אַדְּרַבָּה, מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי אֶת הָאָח, שֶׁכֵּן קָם תַּחַת אָחִיו לְיִיבּוּם. כְּלוּם יֵשׁ יִבּוּם אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין בֵּן? הָא יֵשׁ בֵּן — אֵין יִבּוּם.

The baraita objects: On the contrary, I should include the brother, as he stands in his brother’s place with regard to levirate marriage, which a son does not. The baraita rejects this suggestion: Is there ever a case of levirate marriage other than a case where there is no son? In a case where there is a son there is no levirate marriage. This indicates that with regard to levirate marriage as well, a son stands in place of the deceased more than a brother of the deceased.

וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ, דְּהָכָא תַּרְתֵּי, וְהָכָא חֲדָא!

The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to answer the question in this way? Let one derive the halakha that the son stands in place of the father, and the brother does not, from the simple fact that here, in support of extending the father’s status to the son, there are two justifications, i.e., the halakha of designation of the Hebrew maidservant and the halakha of the Hebrew slave, and there, in support of extending it to the brother, there is only one justification, i.e., the halakha of levirate marriage?

מִשּׁוּם דְּעֶבֶד עִבְרִי מֵהַאי פִּירְכָא נָמֵי הוּא דְּנָפְקָא לֵיהּ: כְּלוּם יֵשׁ יִבּוּם אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין בֵּן?

The Gemara responds: That answer is invalid because the halakha that a son, but not a brother, stands in place of his father with regard to a Hebrew slave is not written explicitly in the Torah, but the tanna also derives it from this same refutation, namely: Is there ever a case of levirate marriage other than a case where there is no son. Without this refutation there would not be more justifications in support of extending the father’s status to the son rather than to the brother. Accordingly, this last refutation is the basis for the conclusion.

בָּעֵי רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: בַּת מַהוּ שֶׁתַּעֲמִיד שָׂדֶה לְאָבִיהָ? כֵּיוָן דִּלְעִנְיַן יִבּוּם, בֵּן וּבַת כִּי הֲדָדֵי פָּטְרִי — מוֹקְמָה, אוֹ דִילְמָא כֵּיוָן דִּלְעִנְיַן נַחֲלָה, בַּת בִּמְקוֹם בֵּן כִּי אַחֵר דָּמְיָא — לָא מוֹקְמָה.

§ Rabba bar Avuh raises a dilemma: If a daughter redeemed the ancestral field that her father consecrated, what is the halakha ? Does she thereby preserve possession of the field for her father at the Jubilee Year, like a son? Rabba bar Avuh explains the two sides of the dilemma: Perhaps the halakha is that since with regard to levirate marriage, a son and a daughter are like one another, as both exempt their father’s widow from the obligation of levirate marriage, the daughter preserves possession of the field for her father. Or perhaps the halakha is that since with regard to inheritance, when there is a son, a daughter is considered like another person, as she does not inherit a share of her father’s estate, she does not preserve possession of the field for her father.

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: כֹּל שֶׁהוּא אַחֵר בִּמְקוֹם בֵּן, וְהָא נָמֵי בִּמְקוֹם בֵּן כִּי אַחֵר דָּמְיָא.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita that the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Anyone who is considered like another person when there is a son does not preserve possession of the field for the owner. And with regard to this, i.e., a daughter, as well, when there is a son, she is considered like another person.

בָּעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: אִשָּׁה מִי מַעֲמִיד לָהּ שָׂדֶה? בַּעַל מוֹקֵים לַהּ, שֶׁכֵּן יוֹרְשָׁהּ, אוֹ דִילְמָא בֵּן מוֹקֵים לַהּ, שֶׁכֵּן נוֹטֵל בָּרָאוּי כְּבַמּוּחְזָק? תֵּיקוּ.

Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: If a woman consecrated her ancestral field, which of her heirs can redeem the field and thereby preserve possession of the field for her during the Jubilee Year? Can her husband preserve it for her, as he inherits from her if she dies during his lifetime? Or perhaps her son can preserve if for her, as if the son inherits from his mother, when she was not married at the time of her death, he takes in inheritance the property due to her as he does the property she possessed? There is a halakha that if someone dies and his heir is a woman who is already deceased, her son inherits that property, not her late husband. No resolution is offered, and therefore the Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא מֵרַב חִסְדָּא: הִקְדִּישָׁהּ פָּחוֹת מִשְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים לִפְנֵי הַיּוֹבֵל, מַהוּ שֶׁתֵּצֵא לַכֹּהֲנִים?

§ Rami bar Ḥama raised a dilemma before Rav Ḥisda: If one consecrated his ancestral field less than two years before the Jubilee Year and did not redeem it, what is the halakha with regard to whether or not it is to be removed from his possession during the Jubilee and given to the priests?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי דַּעְתָּיךְ? ״וְנִגְרַע מֵעֶרְכֶּךָ... וְהָיָה הַשָּׂדֶה בְּצֵאתוֹ בַיּוֹבֵל״ — דְּבַת גֵּירָעוֹן — אִין, דְּלָאו בַּת גֵּירָעוֹן — לָא.

Rav Ḥisda said to him: What is your reasoning? Is it that since the verse states: “And a deduction shall be made from your valuation” (Leviticus 27:18), which indicates that the field is redeemed with a deduction according to the years remaining until the Jubilee Year, and the verse also states: “But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy for the Lord…his ancestral possession shall be for the priest” (Leviticus 27:21), this indicates that if the field is fit for deduction, then yes, when it is not redeemed by the owner it is given to the priests at the Jubilee Year, but with regard to a field that is not fit for deduction, i.e., one consecrated less than two years before the Jubilee Year, which must be redeemed according to its full valuation (24a), no, it is not given to the priests but rather is returned to the owner?

אַדְּרַבָּה, ״אִם לֹא יִגְאַל הַשָּׂדֶה... וְהָיָה הַשָּׂדֶה בְּצֵאתוֹ בַיּוֹבֵל״, וְהַאי נָמֵי בַּת גְּאוּלָּה הִיא.

Rav Ḥisda responds: On the contrary, the verse states: “And if he will not redeem the field, or if he sold the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed anymore. But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy for the Lord…his ancestral possession shall be for the priest” (Leviticus 27:20–21). This indicates that any field that could have been redeemed but was not redeemed becomes the possession of the priests. And this field, which was consecrated less than two years before the Jubilee Year, is also fit for redemption. Therefore, if it was not redeemed it is given to the priests.

גְּאָלָהּ אֶחָד מִן הַכֹּהֲנִים כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״לַכֹּהֵן תִּהְיֶה אֲחוּזָּתוֹ״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר?

§ The mishna teaches: If one of the priests redeemed the field and when the Jubilee Year arrived it was in his possession, he may not say: Since it is removed from the possession of the one who redeemed it and given to the priests during the Jubilee Year, and since it is already in my possession, it is mine. Rather, the field is removed from his possession and is divided among all of his brethren, the priests. With regard to this halakha , the Sages taught in a baraita : Why must the verse state: “But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy for the Lord… his ancestral possession shall be for the priest” (Leviticus 27:21)?

מִנַּיִן לְשָׂדֶה שֶׁיּוֹצָא לַכֹּהֲנִים בַּיּוֹבֵל, וּגְאָלָהּ אֶחָד מִן הַכֹּהֲנִים, מִנַּיִן שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר: ״הוֹאִיל וְיוֹצְאָה לַכֹּהֵן, הֲרֵי תַּחַת יָדִי, וּתְהֵא שֶׁלִּי?״ וְדִין הוּא: בְּשֶׁל אֲחֵרִים אֲנִי זוֹכֶה, בְּשֶׁל עַצְמִי לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

The baraita explains: From where is it derived, with regard to a field that was consecrated and not redeemed by the owner, and therefore was to have been removed from the possession of the owner and given to the priests during the Jubilee Year, and one of the priests redeemed it before the Jubilee, from where is it derived that he may not say: Since it is removed from the possession of the owner and given to the priest at the Jubilee, and since it is already in my possession, it should therefore be mine? And this claim is supported by a logical inference: Since in the Jubilee Year I obtain fields of others that I did not previously redeem, is it not all the more so clear that I should retain my own field that I redeemed from the Temple treasury myself?

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲחוּזָּתוֹ״, אֲחוּזָּה שֶׁלּוֹ, וְאֵין זֶה שֶׁלּוֹ. הָא כֵּיצַד? יוֹצָא מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ וּמִתְחַלֶּקֶת לְאֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים.

Therefore, the verse states: “His ancestral possession,” which can be interpreted to mean that only his ancestral field, i.e., one that the priest inherited from his own ancestors, is automatically his, but this field is not his. How so, i.e., how is this field treated? It is removed from his possession and is divided among all of his brethren, the priests.

מַתְנִי׳ הִגִּיעַ יוֹבֵל וְלֹא נִגְאֲלָה, הַכֹּהֲנִים נִכְנָסִין לְתוֹכָהּ וְנוֹתְנִין אֶת דָּמֶיהָ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: נִכְנָסִין וְלֹא נוֹתְנִין.

MISHNA: If one consecrated his ancestral field and the Jubilee Year arrived and it was not redeemed by the owner or anyone else, the priests enter into the field and give its redemption payment to the Temple treasury; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: They enter into the field, but they do not give its redemption payment to the Temple treasury.

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: לֹא נִכְנָסִין וְלֹא נוֹתְנִין, אֶלָּא נִקְרֵאת ״שְׂדֵה רְטוּשִׁין״ עַד הַיּוֹבֵל הַשֵּׁנִי. הִגִּיעַ הַיּוֹבֵל הַשֵּׁנִי וְלֹא נִגְאֲלָה, נִקְרֵאת ״רְטוּשֵׁי רְטוּשִׁין״ עַד הַיּוֹבֵל הַשְּׁלִישִׁי. לְעוֹלָם אֵין הַכֹּהֲנִים נִכְנָסִין לְתוֹכָהּ עַד שֶׁיִּגְאָלֶנָּה אַחֵר.

Rabbi Eliezer says: The priests do not enter into the field, and they also do not give its redemption payment to the Temple treasury. Rather, the field remains in the possession of the Temple treasury, and it is called: An abandoned field, until the second Jubilee Year. If the second Jubilee arrived and it was still not redeemed, it is called: An abandoned field from among the abandoned fields, meaning one that was abandoned twice, until the third Jubilee. In any case, the priests never enter into a consecrated field during the Jubilee Year until another person redeems it first.

גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? גָּמַר ״קֹדֶשׁ״ ״קֹדֶשׁ״ מִמַּקְדִּישׁ בַּיִת,

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion that the priests who enter into an unredeemed consecrated field during the Jubilee Year must give its redemption payment to the Temple treasury? The Gemara answers: He derives this halakha from a verbal analogy from the word “holy” stated in reference to an ancestral field, and the word “holy” that appears with regard to one who consecrates a house.

מָה לְהַלָּן בְּדָמִים — אַף כָּאן בְּדָמִים.

The Gemara explains: Just as there, with regard to one who consecrates a house, where the verse states: “And when a man shall consecrate his house to be holy for the Lord” (Leviticus 27:14), it can be redeemed from the Temple treasury only by payment of money, as the verse concludes: “As the priest shall value it, so shall it stand,” so too here, where the verse states with regard to the priests entering into an ancestral field: “But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy for the Lord…his ancestral possession shall be for the priest” (Leviticus 27:21), the priests can enter the field only by payment of money.

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, גָּמַר ״קֹדֶשׁ״ ״קֹדֶשׁ״ מִכִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת, מָה לְהַלָּן בְּחִנָּם, אַף כָּאן בְּחִנָּם.

The Gemara asks: And what is the source for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that the priests are not required to give the redemption payment to the Temple treasury? The Gemara answers: He derives the halakha from the word “holy” used with regard to an ancestral field, and the word “holy” used with regard to the communal peace offering of two lambs that accompanies the two loaves on Shavuot . Just as there, with regard to the offering of two lambs, where the verse states: “They shall be holy to the Lord for the priest” (Leviticus 23:20), the lambs are given to the priests for free, as is the halakha with regard to all offerings to which members of the priesthood are entitled, so too here, the consecrated and unredeemed ancestral field is given to the priests for free.

וְרַבִּי [יְהוּדָה] נָמֵי נֵילַיף מִכִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת! דָּנִין קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yehuda, let him also derive the halakha by a verbal analogy from the two lambs brought on Shavuot . Why does he disagree with Rabbi Shimon? The Gemara answers: One derives the halakha with regard to items consecrated for Temple maintenance, such as an ancestral field,