Arakhin — Daf 26a

מקדשי בדק הבית ואין דנין קדשי בדק הבית מקדשי מזבח

ורבי שמעון נמי נילף ממקדיש בית דנין דבר שמתנה לכהנים מדבר שמתנה לכהנים ואין דנין דבר שמתנה לכהנים מדבר שאינו מתנה לכהנים:

רבי אליעזר אומר לא נכנסין ולא נותנין [וכו']:

אמר רבה מ"ט דר"א אמר קרא (ויקרא כז, כ) ואם לא יגאל את השדה לא יגאל עוד ואם מכר את השדה והיה השדה בצאתו ביובל

אמר אביי סכינא חריפא מפסקא קראי אלא אמר אביי טעמא דרבי אליעזר כדתניא לא יגאל יכול לא תהא נגאלת שתהא לפניו כשדה מקנה ת"ל עוד לכמות שהיתה אינה נגאלת אבל נגאלת שתהא לפניו כשדה מקנה

אימת אילימא ביובל ראשון אמאי אינה נגאלת שדה אחוזה נמי הויא אלא פשיטא ביובל שני

ולמאן אילימא לרבי יהודה ור"ש לכהנים נפקא אלא לאו ר' אליעזר ושמע מינה טעמא דר' אליעזר מהכא

ותסברא רבי יהודה ור"ש האי עוד מאי דרשי ביה אלא הכא במאי עסקינן בשדה שיצאה לכהנים והקדישה כהן ואתו בעלים למיפרקה

ס"ד אמינא לא תיפרוק שתהא לפניו כשדה מקנה ת"ל עוד לכמות שהיתה אינה נגאלת אבל נגאלת שתהא לפניו כשדה מקנה

והתניא (ויקרא כז, כד) בשנת היובל ישוב השדה לאשר קנהו מאתו יכול יחזור לגזבר שלקחו ממנו תלמוד לומר (ויקרא כז, כד) לאשר לו אחוזת הארץ

יאמר לאשר לו אחוזת הארץ מה תלמוד לומר לאשר קנהו מאתו שדה שיצאת לכהנים ומכרה כהן והקדישה לוקח וגאלה אחר יכול תחזור לבעלים הראשונים ת"ל לאשר קנהו

ואיצטריך לא יגאל ואיצטריכא למיכתב לאשר קנהו

דאי כתב רחמנא לא יגאל דלא קא הדרה כלל אבל הכא דקא הדרה תיהדר למרה קמא כתב רחמנא לאשר קנהו

ואי כתב רחמנא לאשר קנהו דלא קא יהבי בעלים דמי אבל הכא דקא יהבי דמי תיקום בידייהו כתב רחמנא לא יגאל

ואי כתב רחמנא לא יגאל ולא כתב עוד הוה אמינא לא תיפרוק כלל כתב רחמנא עוד לכמות שהיתה אינה נגאלת אבל נגאלת שתהא לפניו כשדה מקנה

מאי הוי עלה אמר רבא אמר קרא והיה השדה בצאתו ביובל בצאתו מיד אחר

from other objects dedicated to repairs of the Sanctuary, but one may make no inference for objects dedicated to Temple repairs from such as are dedicated to the altar. But let R. Simeon, too, derive it from ‘one who consecrated his house’? — One may make inference for things given as a gift to the priests from others which are a gift unto priests, but one may not make inference for things which are a gift to the priests from others which are not a gift to the priests. R. ELIEZER SAYS: THEY NEITHER ENTER [INTO POSSESSION] NOR PAY [ITS VALUE]. Rabbah said: What is the reason for R. Eliezer's view? Scripture said: And if he will not redeem the field . . . it shall not be redeemed any more . . . or if he have sold the field to another man [then] . . . the field, when it goeth out in the Jubilee. Said Abaye: A sharp knife to cut Scriptural verses [to pieces]! Rather, said Abaye, this is the reason for R. Eliezer's view, as it was taught: ‘It shall not be, redeemed any more’. One might have assumed that [means]: It shall not be redeemed [by the owners], i.e., even to be considered [to him] a field acquired by purchase, therefore Scripture says, ‘any more’, which means: it cannot be redeemed so as to be considered [again] what it was before [a field of possession] but it can be redeemed to become to him like a field acquired by purchase. Now to when does this refer? Will you say, To the first Jubilee? Why can it not be redeemed? It is still a field of possession. Hence is it obviously to the second Jubilee [that we refer]. But according to whom [is this teaching]? Would you say according to either R. Judah or R. Simeon; surely it goes out to the priests [at the first Jubilee]! You must hence say it is in accord with R. Eliezer, which proves that R. Eliezer infers his reason from here. But is that how you think? How then do R. Judah and R. Simeon interpret that ‘any more’. Rather we speak here of a field [of possession] that went out to the priests [at Jubilee], and which the priests thereupon consecrated, and now the [original] owner comes to redeem it. You might have assumed that it cannot be redeemed [by the owner] not even to be regarded as a field acquired by purchase, therefore the text states ‘any more’; [meaning] it cannot be redeemed so as to be considered as before [a field of possession], but it can be redeemed to be considered a field acquired by purchase. And then indeed was it taught: In the year of Jubilee the field shall return unto him of whom it was bought. One might have assumed that it shall go back to the treasurer from whom he bought it, therefore the text states: Even to him to whom the possession of the land belongeth. Now Scripture should [only] have said: ‘Even to him to whom the possession of the land belongeth’ For what purpose does it say: ‘Unto him of whom it was bought’? [It refers to the case of] a field that had gone out to the priests, whereupon the priest sold it and the purchaser consecrated it, and another person came and redeemed it. One might have assumed that it shall revert to the original owners, therefore it is said: ‘Unto him of whom it was bought’. And it was necessary to state]: ‘Unto him of whom it was bought’ and it was necessary to state: ‘It shall not be redeemed any more’. For if the Divine Law had written [only]: ‘It shall not be redeemed any more’ [one would have said that this applied only to the former case] where it does not come back at all [to the one who consecrated it], but here where it reverts [to the one who consecrated it], [I might have said,] it shall revert to the owner; therefore the Divine Law wrote: ‘Unto him of whom it was bought’. And if the Divine Law had written [only]: ‘Unto him of whom it was bought’ [one would have said that this applies to the latter case] where the owner does not pay its value, but here [in the former case] where he pays its value, [I might say] it shall be placed in his possession, therefore the Divine Law wrote: ‘It shall not be redeemed’. And if the Divine Law had written: ‘It shall not be redeemed’, but had not written, ‘any more’, I would have thought: It cannot be redeemed at all, therefore the Divine Law said, ‘any more’, i.e., it cannot revert to its original status again, but it can be so redeemed as to be regarded a field acquired by purchase. Now what of it? — Raba said: Scripture said, ‘But the field when it goeth out in the Jubilee [etc.]’,[implying] when it goeth out [on Jubilee] of the hand [possession] of another.17