026b – אין מקדישין – פרק שביעי – ערכין, דף כו ע”ב

The question was raised: in the second Jubilee, is the owner (who redeems the field) ^[1] treated as like a stranger ^[2] or not?

איבעיא להו - For R. Eliezer, who says that in the second Jubilee the field is a redeemable field (בת גאולה) if it was not redeemed in the first.

בעלים ביובל שני כאחר דמו - If he redeems it, it goes out from his hand to the Kohanim.

או לא כאחר דמו - Rather: just as if he had redeemed it in the first Jubilee it would have stayed in his hand, so too now it stays in his hand.

Come and hear: It shall not be redeemed (Leviticus 27:20). I might have said it can never be redeemed, so that it is in his hand like a field of acquisition ^[3]. Therefore the verse says: again, as it was, it shall not be redeemed; but it can be redeemed, so that it is in his hand like a field of acquisition.

When?

If you say in the first Jubilee, why should it not be redeemable? It is also a field of inheritance!

Obviously it refers to the second Jubilee.

And according to whom? If according to R. Yehuda and R. Shimon, it is derived for the Kohanim.

לכהנים נפקא - And in the second Jubilee it is not a redeemable field (בת גאולה) at all.

Rather, it is according to R. Eliezer, and conclude from it: in the second Jubilee the owners are like a stranger (who bought the field).

Would it make sense that R. Yehuda and R. Shimon hold this? What do they derive from the word again ^[4] in it?

Rather, how do we explain it? In a case where the field went out to the Kohanim and a Kohen consecrated it, and then the owners came to redeem it.

I would have said: let it not be redeemed, so that it is in his hand like a field of acquisition. Therefore the verse says again, as it was, it shall not be redeemed; but it can be redeemed, so that it is in his hand like a field of acquisition.

It was taught: The field shall return to him from whom he acquired it (Leviticus 27:24). I might say it returns to the treasurer^[5] from whom it was taken. The verse says to whom the land of inheritance belongs; why then from whom he acquired it? It refers to a field that went out to the Kohanim, which a Kohen sold and a buyer consecrated, and another redeemed it. I might say it returns to the original owners; therefore the verse says to whom he acquired it.

The verse needed to write it shall not be redeemed, and it needed to write to whom he acquired it.

For if the Torah had written it shall not be redeemed only, it would not return at all; the Torah therefore wrote to whom he acquired it.

And if the Torah had written to whom he acquired it only, [I would say it returns] only when the owners did not pay its value; but here, where the owners paid its value, it should remain in their hands.

The Torah wrote it shall not be redeemed. And if it had written it shall not be redeemed without again, I would have said it can never be redeemed. The Torah wrote again, as it was, it shall not be redeemed; but it can be redeemed, so that it is in his hand like a field of acquisition.

The Torah wrote again, as it was, it shall not be redeemed; but it can be redeemed, so that it is in his hand like a field of acquisition.

What is the outcome of this?

Come and hear: R. Eliezer^[6] says: if the owners redeemed it in the second Jubilee, it goes out to the Kohanim in the Jubilee.

Ravina^[7] said to Rav Ashi: Did we not learn it thus: R. Eliezer says the Kohanim do not enter it until another redeems it? ^[8]

He said to him: the owners in the second Jubilee are ^[9] like a stranger.

There are those who say: R. Eliezer says that if it was redeemed in the second Jubilee, it does not go out to the Kohanim in the Jubilee ^[10].

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: We too have learned it: R. Eliezer says the Kohanim do not enter it until another redeems it ^[11].

He said to him: if it were from the Mishnah, I would have thought the owners in the second Jubilee are like a stranger; it teaches us ^[12] otherwise.

Mishnah

Mishnah: If one bought a field from his father, and his father died, and afterwards he consecrated it, it is a field of inheritance.

מתני' הלוקח שדה מאביו ומת אביו כו' הרי היא כשדה אחוזה - Mishnah: one who buys a field from his father and his father dies, [and then he consecrates it] — it is a field of inheritance: since before he consecrated it, it fell to him by inheritance, so if he wants to redeem it, he redeems it for a bet kor (בית כור)^[13] at fifty sela, as a field of inheritance; if not, and another redeems it, it goes out to the Kohanim in the Jubilee.

If he consecrated it, and afterwards his father died, it is a field of acquisition.

כשדה מקנה - Because we look at the time of consecration: if he wants to redeem it, he redeems it at its value, as the law of a field of acquisition; if not, and another redeems it, it returns to him at the Jubilee, since at the time of consecration the body of the field was not his; it is destined to return to his father at the Jubilee, like other sales. And like any consecrator of a field of acquisition: the redeemer returns it from the treasurer at the Jubilee to whom the land of inheritance belongs, that is his father, and this one inherits his father's right.

These are the words of R. Meir.

R. Yehuda and R. Shimon say: it is a field of inheritance,

as it says: "If it be of his field of acquisition, and not of his field of inheritance" ^[14].

[The verse excludes] a field that is not fit to be a field of inheritance from going out [to the Kohanim], and [includes] this one, which is fit to be a field of inheritance.

A field of acquisition does not go out to the Kohanim in the Jubilee,

שדה מקנה - One who consecrated it and another redeemed it does not go out to the Kohanim in the Jubilee, but to the one who sold it to the consecrator.

since a man cannot consecrate what is not his.

שאין אדם מקדיש דבר שאינו שלו - And this land was his only until the Jubilee.

The Kohanim and the Levites consecrate forever, and redeem forever, both before the Jubilee and after the Jubilee.

מקדישין לעולם - The Gemara explains it.

וגואלין לעולם - If a Kohen consecrated the land he inherited, it may be redeemed even after the Jubilee, as it says (Leviticus 25:33): the redemption of the Levites' houses is forever.

They taught: From where [do we know] that one who buys a field from his father and consecrates it, and afterwards his father dies, that it is a field of inheritance? The verse says: if [the field] of his acquisition, not of his field of inheritance (Leviticus 27:22): a field that is not fit to be a field of inheritance goes out; this one, which is fit to be a field of inheritance, goes out. These are the words of R. Yehuda and R. Shimon.

^[15] R. Meir says: From where [do we know] that one who buys a field from his father, and his father dies, and afterwards he consecrates it, that it is a field of inheritance? The verse says: if of his field of acquisition, not of his field of inheritance: a field that is not a field of inheritance goes out; this one, which is a field of inheritance, goes out.

Shall we say they disagree about this: R. Meir holds that acquisition of produce ^[16] is like acquisition of the body?

גמ' רבי מאיר סבר קנין פירות - Gemara: R. Meir holds that acquisition of produce is like acquisition of the body: the field was acquired by the son in his father's lifetime for its produce, to eat the produce and not the body itself, since it is destined to return at the Jubilee; so if the father died before he consecrated it, the verse is needed to make it a field of inheritance, for otherwise one would say it is not one. But if he consecrated it while it was still a field of acquisition and afterwards his father died, the verse is not needed to make it a field of inheritance; it is a field of acquisition.

R. Yehuda and R. Shimon hold that acquisition of produce is not like acquisition of the body.

ורבי יהודה ורבי שמעון סברי לאו כקנין הגוף דמי - And R. Yehuda and R. Shimon hold it is not like acquisition of the body: if the father died before he consecrated it, he inherits the body and it is a field of inheritance, so for them the verse is not needed to extend it, since it was fully a field of inheritance (in his father's lifetime it was not his). When the verse speaks of consecration followed by the father's death, [it means]: although at the time of consecration it was a field of acquisition, now that his father died before redemption it is a field of inheritance.

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: In general, according to R. Shimon and R. Yehuda, acquisition of produce is like acquisition of the body.

כקנין הגוף דמי - And for the case of his father's death followed by consecration, the verse is needed too.

Tosafot

איבעיא להו בעלים ביובל שני - Explanation: according to R. Eliezer, whether the owner in the second Jubilee is like a stranger: since it was not redeemed and not yet given to the Kohanim in the Jubilee, and it is still with the treasurer, the owners may redeem it. "It shall not be redeemed again" is read as: not redeemed as it was, i.e., redeemed by another from the treasurer and never given to the Kohanim. The verse does not deal with the case where it stays in the owners' hands after the treasurer's release.

אלא הכא במאי עסקינן בשדה שיצתה לכהנים - Explanation: the case is a field of inheritance that went out to the Kohanim, which a Kohen consecrated in the second Jubilee, and the owners came to redeem it. I would have thought it should not be redeemed, so that it is a field of acquisition; the verse "again, as it was" says it cannot be redeemed as it was, but it can be redeemed so that it is a field of acquisition. The two verses (27:21 and 27:24) deal with two cases, and according to R. Eliezer too the verse reads this way. The Gemara asks why R. Eliezer's reasoning is not stated earlier; it concludes that R. Eliezer derives from "when it goes out in the Jubilee" that it goes out only from the hand of another, and while it is in the treasurer's hand it does not go out in the Jubilee.

שדה מקנה אינה יוצאה לכהנים ביובל - Explanation: "for a man cannot consecrate what is not his" — on the simple reading, this means if another redeemed it from the treasurer before the Jubilee. Rashi, in his Chumash commentary, explains that even if no one else redeemed it and it is still with the treasurer, it goes out free in the Jubilee to the original owners, "to whom the land of inheritance belongs".

לרבי יהודה ור"ש קנין פירות כקנין הגוף דמיא כו' - Explanation: I explained this in the discussion of Hasholeiach (Gittin 48a).

Notes

1. 1. The Jubilee (יובל) is the fiftieth year, when a sold field returns to its original family. The "second Jubilee" is the second such year after the sale.
2. 2. "Like a stranger" (כאחר דמו): as if the redeemer were someone other than the owner. The question is whether the owner's redemption in the second Jubilee counts like a stranger's.
3. 3. A field of acquisition (שדה מקנה) is land a person bought; a field of inheritance (שדה אחוזה) came to him from his father. They differ at the Jubilee and in redemption value.
4. 4. "Again" (Leviticus 27:20): "And if he will not redeem the field, or if he has sold the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed any more."
5. 5. Gizbar (גזבר): the Temple treasurer, who held a redeemed field until the Jubilee.
6. 6. This is R. Eliezer's view, quoted from a baraita: if the owners redeemed it in the second Jubilee, it goes out to the Kohanim in the Jubilee.
7. 7. Ravina and Rav Ashi: the last generation of Babylonian Amoraim, whose discussions the Gemara records.
8. 8. A Mishnah clause, quoted by Ravina: the Kohanim do not enter the field until another redeems it.
9. 9. That is: the owners in the second Jubilee are like a stranger, so the Kohanim wait for another's redemption.
10. 10. A different version of the baraita, reversing the earlier one.
11. 11. This is the Mishnah clause already quoted above.
12. 12. Teaches us: the Gemara concludes that this ruling is learned from the Mishnah and not from the first assumption.
13. 13. Bet kor (בית כור): an area sown with a kor of seed, the unit used to price the redemption here.
14. 14. Leviticus 27:22: "If it be of his field of acquisition, and not of his field of inheritance."
15. 15. R. Meir, R. Yehuda and R. Shimon: named Tannaim of the Mishnah period, who disagree here.
16. 16. Acquisition of produce (קנין פירות) means acquiring only the produce; acquisition of the body (קנין הגוף) means acquiring the land itself. The Tannaim disagree whether acquiring produce is like acquiring the body.