025b – אין מקדישין – פרק שביעי – ערכין, דף כה ע”ב

The Sages taught: If he does not redeem the field (Lev. 27:20); and if he sells the field to the treasurer^[1] (Lev. 27:20); to another man (Lev. 27:20). You say: to another, and not to a son. Or perhaps it means only to another, and not to a brother? When it says a man, it says that a brother is also stated.

גמ' לאיש אחר - And the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, is for the priests.

ולא לבן - That if his son redeemed it, it does not go out to the priests, but only to his father.

הרי אח אמור - That it shall be like “another” and go out to the priests.

Well then, how do I explain “to another, and not to a son”?

What is the reason to include the son and to exclude the brother? I include the son, since he stands in his father’s place for designation^[2] and for a Hebrew bondsman^[3].

ליעידה - That if his father bought a Hebrew maidservant and wants to designate her for him, he may designate her; he need not betroth her with other money, but with the same money his father paid for her, she is betrothed to him, as explained in the first chapter of Kiddushin (19b).

ולעבד עברי - For the son serves a Hebrew bondsman if the master dies within six years, but the brother does not serve him if the master dies without a son and the brother inherits him, as we say in the first chapter of Kiddushin (17b). So here too we establish the son in the father’s place for a field held as a possession: just as it does not go out from the father’s hand to the priests, so if the son redeemed it, it does not go out to the priests in the Jubilee.

On the contrary, I include the brother, since he stands in his brother’s place for levirate marriage^[4]. Is there levirate marriage except where there is no son? If there is a son, there is no levirate marriage.

But let it be derived otherwise: here there are two [matters], and here there is one.

ותיפוק ליה דהכא תרתי כו' - And why do we need to answer “Is there levirate marriage except where there is no son?”

It is derived from this very objection, “Is there levirate marriage except where there is no son?”, that the Hebrew bondsman is also excluded.

משום - For the rule that the son stands in the father’s place for a Hebrew bondsman is not derived from a verse, but from this objection, “Is there levirate marriage except where there is no son?”, as stated in Kiddushin (17b). Without this objection the bondsman would not be derived, and here there would be one matter and here one.

Rava bar Avuh asked: [concerning] a daughter, may she be the one who “establishes”^[5] a field for her father? Since for levirate marriage a son and a daughter exempt each other, should we establish it for her? Or perhaps, since for inheritance a daughter stands in the place of a son and is like “another”, we do not establish it?

מהו שתעמיד כו' - If his daughter redeemed a field held as a possession from the treasurer, may it go out to her father in the Jubilee and not to the priests?

Come and hear: it was taught in the school of R. Yishmael that anyone who is “another” stands in the place of a son.

כל שהוא אחר במקום בן - That where there is a son, the one who is “another” does not establish [the field].

But this one too stands in the place of a son, and is like “another”.

R. Zeira asked: in the case of a woman, who establishes a field for her?

אשה - That she dedicated a field of melog^[6] (a dowry field): who will redeem it from the Temple’s hand, so that it does not go out to the priests in the Jubilee, if she cannot redeem it?

The husband establishes it for her, since he inherits her.

שכן יורשה - That he inherits her, even if she has a son by her husband. The husband inherits his wife and not a son, as it is written, “and he shall inherit her,” teaching that the husband inherits his wife (Bava Batra 111a).

Alternatively, a son establishes it for her, since he takes [property] as if it were already in her possession.^[7]

א"ד בן מוקים לה - For where there is no husband and her son inherits her, he takes the property that is due to fall to him after death as though it were already hers before her death. But a husband who inherits his wife does not take [property] “as though in possession,” as we say in the chapter Yesh Nochalin (Bava Batra 113a).

It stands unresolved (teiku).^[8]

Rami bar Chama asked Rav Chisda: if she dedicated [a field] less than two years before the Jubilee^[9], may it go out to the priests?

הקדישה פחות משתי שנים לפני היובל - And another came and redeemed it, not at a reduced price but at the full fifty [shekels]: may it go out to the priests in the Jubilee like an ordinary field held as a possession?

He said to him: What is your view?

מאי דעתיך - That you would have to say it does not go out.

(Lev. 27:18) “And it shall be [reckoned] from your valuation”, and “the field when it goes out in the Jubilee”: [this is said of] a field subject to reduction (bat geiron)^[10]? Yes.

Is it not a field subject to reduction? No.

On the contrary: “if he does not redeem the field, and the field goes out in the Jubilee” — this too is a field subject to redemption (bat geulah).

[If] one of the priests redeemed it, etc.:

The Sages taught: (Lev. 27:21) “It shall be the priest’s, as his possession.” Why does the verse need to say this?

ת"ל לכהן תהיה אחוזתו - And one might have expounded: a priest’s possession that he inherited from his father shall be his, but this one is not his.

From where [do we know] that a field goes out to the priests in the Jubilee?

לשדה היוצאה לכהנים - That it is due to the priests in the Jubilee: a field that the owner dedicated and did not redeem.

And [if] one of the priests redeemed it.

וגאלה אחד מן הכהנים - From the treasurer’s hand.

From where [do we know] that he should not say: since it goes out to a priest, it is in my hand, so let it be mine?

And it is an argument from the lesser: if I acquire what belongs to others, then surely I acquire what is my own.^[11] Therefore the verse says “its possession” (Lev. 27:21).

בשל אחרים אני זוכה - That if an Israelite redeemed it, it would go out of his hand, and I would acquire it along with my brother priests.

[It means that] a possession that is his, and this one is not his.

How so? It goes out from his hand and is divided among his brother priests.

Mishnah: If the Jubilee arrived and the field was not redeemed, the priests enter into it and give its value, the words of R. Yehuda.^[12]

מתני' כהנים נכנסין לתוכה כו' - The priests of the Jubilee watch enter into it, etc., and it is firmly in their hands.

R. Shimon says: they enter but do not give [value].

R. Eliezer says: they neither enter nor give [value]; rather it is called a field of retushin^[13] until the second Jubilee.

שדה רטושין - Left neglected until another redeems it; and when the Jubilee comes it goes out from his hand to the priests.

When the second Jubilee arrived and it was not redeemed, it is called retushei retushin until the third Jubilee.

Priests never enter into it until another redeems it.

Gemara: What is the reasoning of R. Yehuda? He derives “holy, holy”^[14] from one who dedicates a house^[15].

גמ' ממקדיש בית - That for a dedicated house the verse says, “If a man sanctifies his house” (Lev. 27:14), and for a field held as a possession it says, “when it goes out in the Jubilee, holy” (Lev. 27:21). Why: a house never goes out from the Temple’s hand without money, as is written there, “and the priest shall value it”. A house never goes to the priests at all, only a field held as a possession, by a royal decree. Even a field held as a possession does not go out from the Temple’s hand without money. Therefore if another redeemed it, its value goes to the Temple repair fund, and when the Jubilee comes it goes out free to the priests; and if it was not redeemed, the priests give fifty shekels and take it.

Just as there [the house is redeemed] for money, so here [the field is redeemed] for money.

And R. Shimon derives “holy, holy” from the lambs of Shavuot^[16].

בכבשי עצרת - It is written (Lev. 23:20), “holy to the Lord, for the priest”: the Shavuot lambs and a field held as a possession are both among the twenty-four priestly gifts (Num. 18). But a house never becomes the priests’ even if another redeemed it from the Temple’s hand.

Just as there [the lambs go] for nothing, so here [the field goes] for nothing.

And R. [Yehuda] also derives from the lambs of Shavuot that we learn the sanctity of Temple-repair property^[17].

Tosafot

(שייך לע"ב) ליעידה ולעבד עברי - And if you ask: why does the Gemara not also list inheritance? One cannot say that we know the law of inheritance only from this, that it precedes a field held as a possession (as stated in Yesh Nochalin, Bava Batra 118a). That is not so: even if they were equal in other respects, like a Hebrew bondsman and a field held as a possession, still for designation the son comes before the brother by an explicit verse, and from this we know the law of inheritance well. Therefore it seems to explain that [the Gemara] mentioned only the case where the brother does not apply at all; but in inheritance the brother does apply where there is neither son nor daughter (nor father).

כלום יש יבום אלא במקום שאין בן - Explanation: the son has more priority than the brother in this matter. But one should not explain as it seems at first glance, that they are equal in this matter, so that the son would be preferred only in designation and the Hebrew bondsman. For in Yesh Nochalin (Bava Batra 109b) it concludes that a daughter precedes the father and the brother for this reason: for levirate purposes a son and a daughter are equal, and for inheritance too a son and a daughter are equal. It follows that we must say that for this reason a son takes precedence over a brother.

אחוזתו שלו ואין זו שלו - And if you ask: why do we need “its possession” without a verse? We could refute the kal vachomer, as at the end of Mekhilta regarding a field of herem, which derives a kal vachomer of this kind and concludes: what is the comparison? There he acquires in general, here he takes [it] by purchase. And so one could refute it here too. We answer: were it not for “its possession”, I would have said, by a gezerah shavah “priest, priest”, from one who robs a convert: it does not go out from his hand. This is also how the Gemara reads it in Bava Kamma (109b and there): a baraita, if a priest robbed a convert, from where [do we know] that he should not say: since it goes out to the priests, it is in my hand, so let it be mine? A kal vachomer: if I acquire what belongs to others, surely I acquire what is mine. And the verse says, “and the holy things of a man shall be his” (Num. 5:10), from which we learn that a priest offers his sacrifices at any time, even in a watch that is not his; and then a kal vachomer would follow that he should offer his guilt-offering for robbing the convert while keeping the principal in his hand. The Gemara answers: we learn “priest, priest” from a field held as a possession, which goes out from his hand and is divided among all his brother priests. And the verse here is needed because of this: without “its possession”, one would say that a field held as a possession does not go out from a priest’s hand, as it is written, “and the holy things of a man shall be his”; so “its possession… and this is not his” is needed, and from it we learn the robbery of a convert by gezerah shavah “priest, priest”.

מה להלן בדמים אף כאן בדמים - And if you ask: how do we know that the priests have a claim on it more than another person? For perhaps, like a dedicated house, which goes out for money to anyone who wishes, priest and Israelite being equal in it, we should say the same here. One answers: the plain sense of the verse implies it. “If he does not redeem the field” means the owner does not redeem it, but it stays in the hand of the treasurer until the Jubilee; and if he sold the field to another man, and that other redeemed it, the owner may no longer redeem it from the Temple’s hand; “but when it goes out in the Jubilee, it shall be holy to the Lord, for the priests” — it appears from the verses that it goes out into the priests’ hands. And the gezerah shavah serves R. Yehuda to teach that it goes out for money and not for free, when another did not redeem it.

ורבי שמעון מ"ט - It is puzzling: at first the book asks “what is R. Yehuda’s reason”, which shows that R. Shimon’s reasoning is more reasonable without a gezerah shavah; and afterwards it asks “what is R. Shimon’s reason”, which shows that R. Yehuda’s is more reasonable. One answers: we find a similar case in Bava Kamma (10b) regarding “ten people struck him with ten sticks”: one says it means “when it strikes every person, until every person is struck”, and the other says it means “any person at all”. It is reasonable: according to what I explained, the plain sense of the verse implies that it goes out to the priests, and the gezerah shavah was needed to teach that it goes out for money, and the other for free.

Notes

1. 1. The gizbar (treasurer) was the Temple official in charge of its treasury, who received a field dedicated to the Temple and sold it.
2. 2. Yi'udah: a father who bought a Hebrew maidservant may designate her for his son as a wife. This designation betroths her without fresh kiddushin, and the son stands in the father's place for this purpose.
3. 3. A Hebrew bondsman is an Israelite sold into servitude, who serves six years. If his master dies within those six years, he serves the son and not the brother.
4. 4. Levirate marriage (yibbum): when a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow or perform halitzah. If the deceased left a son, there is no yibbum.
5. 5. To "establish" a field (להעמיד שדה) means to hold it in one's name, so that it returns to the father in the Jubilee and does not go to the priests. The Gemara asks whether a daughter, who inherits when there is no son, counts for this.
6. 6. Sadeh melog: a field that a woman brings to her husband as her dowry. The husband enjoys its produce, but the ownership remains with the wife.
7. 7. "Takes as though in possession" (נוטל בראוי כבמוחזק): an heir takes property that was not yet in the deceased's hands, as though it were already in his hands. This is the legal term for inheritance.
8. 8. Teiku: the question is left unresolved, with no decision.
9. 9. The Jubilee: the fiftieth year, when a dedicated field that was not redeemed returns to the owner's family and goes to the priests.
10. 10. Bat geiron: a field that is redeemed before the Jubilee at a reduced price, computed by the years remaining until the Jubilee. Bat geulah: a field redeemed at its full price.
11. 11. Kal vachomer: an argument from the lighter to the heavier. If a priest may acquire property of others, then surely he may acquire his own.
12. 12. The Tannaim differ here. R. Yehuda: the priests enter and give the value. R. Shimon: they enter without giving value. R. Eliezer: they neither enter nor give value.
13. 13. Shadeh retushin: an abandoned field, belonging neither to the owner nor to the priests, until the next Jubilee. Retushei retushin: a field that has passed one more Jubilee in this state.
14. 14. Gezerah shavah: a verbal analogy. Two passages of the Torah share the same word ("holy"), so the law of one is transferred to the other.
15. 15. A house dedicated to the Temple: the owner may redeem it for money, and it never goes to the priests at the Jubilee (Lev. 27:14–15).
16. 16. Kivsei atzeret: the two lambs brought on Shavuot (Lev. 23:17–20), eaten by the priests.
17. 17. Kodshei bedek ha-bayit: property dedicated to the repair of the Temple.