Arakhin — Daf 26b

איבעיא להו בעלים ביובל שני כאחר דמו או לא

תא שמע (ויקרא כז, כ) 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 אחוזה נמי הויא אלא פשיטא ביובל שני

ולמאן אי לרבי יהודה ורבי שמעון לכהנים נפקא אלא לאו לרבי אליעזר ושמע מינה בעלים ביובל שני כאחר דמו

ותסברא רבי יהודה ורבי שמעון האי עוד מאי דרשי ביה אלא הכא במאי עסקינן בשדה שיצאה לכהנים והקדישה כהן ואתו בעלים למיפרקה ס"ד אמינא לא תיפרוק שתהא כשדה מקנה ת"ל עוד לכמות שהיתה אינה נגאלת אבל נגאלת שתהא לפניו כשדה מקנה

והתניא (ויקרא כז, כד) ישוב השדה לאשר קנהו מאתו יכול יחזור לגזבר שלקחה הימנו ת"ל (ויקרא כז, כד) לאשר לו אחוזת הארץ

מה תלמוד לומר לאשר קנהו שדה שיצאה לכהנים ומכרה כהן והקדישה לוקח וגאלה אחר יכול תחזור לבעלים הראשונים ת"ל לאשר קנהו

ואיצטריך למיכתב לא יגאל ואיצטריך למיכתב לאשר קנהו דאי כתב רחמנא לא יגאל דלא קא הדרא כלל כתב רחמנא לאשר קנהו

ואי כתב רחמנא לאשר קנהו דלא קיהבי בעלים דמי אבל הכא דיהבי בעלים דמי דתיקום בידיהו 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 ת"ש ר' אליעזר אומר גאלה בעלים ביובל שני יוצאה לכהנים ביובל

א"ל רבינא לרב אשי האנן לא תנן הכי רבי אליעזר אומר אין הכהנים נכנסין לתוכה עד שיגאלנה אחר אמר ליה בעלים ביובל שני כאחר דמו

איכא דאמרי ר' אליעזר אומר גאלה ביובל שני אינה יוצאה לכהנים ביובל א"ל רבינא לרב אשי אף אנן נמי תנינא ר' אליעזר אומר אין הכהנים נכנסין לתוכה עד שיגאלנה אחר א"ל אי ממתני' ה"א בעלים ביובל שני כאחר דמו קמ"ל:

מתני׳ הלוקח שדה מאביו ומת אביו ואח"כ הקדישה הרי היא כשדה אחוזה הקדישה ואח"כ מת אביו הרי היא כשדה מקנה דברי ר"מ

רבי יהודה ור"ש אומרים הרי היא כשדה אחוזה שנאמר (ויקרא כז, טז) אם משדה מקנתו אשר לא משדה אחוזתו שדה שאינה ראויה להיות שדה אחוזה יצתה זו שהיא ראויה להיות שדה אחוזה

שדה מקנה אינה יוצאה לכהנים ביובל שאין אדם מקדיש דבר שאינו שלו הכהנים והלוים מקדישין לעולם וגואלין לעולם בין לפני היובל בין לאחר היובל:

גמ׳ תנו רבנן מנין ללוקח שדה מאביו והקדישה ואחר כך מת אביו מנין שתהא לפניו כשדה אחוזה ת"ל {ויקרא כ״ז:כ״ב } ואם (משדה) מקנתו אשר לא משדה אחוזתו שדה שאינה ראויה להיות שדה אחוזה יצתה זו שראויה להיות שדה אחוזה דברי רבי יהודה ורבי שמעון

רבי מאיר אומר מנין ללוקח שדה מאביו ומת אביו ואחר כך הקדישה מנין שתהא לפניו כשדה אחוזה ת"ל ואם משדה מקנתו אשר לא משדה אחוזתו שדה שאינה שדה אחוזה יצאת זו שהיא שדה אחוזה

לימא בהא קא מיפלגי דר"מ סבר קנין פירות כקנין הגוף דמי

ר' יהודה ור"ש סברי קנין פירות לאו כקנין הגוף דמי

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק בעלמא לר"ש ור"י קנין פירות כקנין הגוף דמי

The question was asked: Is the owner in the second Jubilee cycle considered like someone else or not?1 — Come and hear: ‘It shall not be redeemed any more’. One might have assumed it shall not be redeemed [by the owners] even to be considered before him like a field acquired by purchase, therefore it is said: ‘Any more, i.e., it cannot be redeemed so as to be considered again what it was before, but it can be redeemed so as to become to him like a field acquired by purchase. Now to what does this refer? Will you say to the first Jubilee? Why should it not be redeemed? It is still regarded a field of possession! Hence the reference is obviously to the second Jubilee. But according to whose view [is this teaching]? If according to R. Judah or R. Simeon, surely it goes out to the priests [at the first Jubilee]? one must rather say therefore, it is in accord with R. Eliezer, which proves that [according to him]2 the owner in the second Jubilee is considered as if he were another person. But do you think so? How then would R. Judah and R. Simeon interpret ‘any more’? — Rather do we deal here with the case of a field [of possession] that went out [at Jubilee] to the priests, and which the priest consecrated, and now the original owner comes to redeem it. You might have thought: It cannot be redeemed [by the owner] so as to become like a field acquired by purchase, therefore it is said: ‘any more’, I.e., it cannot be redeemed so as to be considered what it was before, but it can be redeemed so as to become to him a field acquired by purchase. Thus also was it taught: ‘The field shall return unto him of whom it was bought’. One might have assumed it shall return to the treasurer from whom he had bought it, therefore the text states: ‘Even to him unto whom the possession of the land belongeth’. Now Scripture should have said: ‘Unto whom the possession of the land belongeth’. For what purpose does it say: ‘Unto him of whom the field was bought’? It refers to a field that had gone out to the priests and a priest sold it, whereupon the purchaser consecrated it and another person came and redeemed it. One might have assumed that it shall revert to the original owner, therefore it is said: ‘Unto him of whom it was bought’. And it was necessary to write: ‘It shall not be redeemed any more’, as it was necessary to write: ‘Unto him of whom it was bought’. For had the Divine Law written [only], ‘It shall not be redeemed any more’, [one would have said that applies only in the former case] where it does not come back at all, [to the one who consecrated it], but here where it does revert [to him], 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 this applies to the latter case] where the owner does not pay its money-value, but here [in the former case] where he pays its money-value, it shall be placed in his possession, therefore the Divine Law wrote: ‘It shall not be redeemed’. And if the Divine Law had written [only]: ‘It shall not be redeemed’, but had not written any more’, I might have said that it cannot be redeemed at all, therefore the Divine Law wrote ‘any more’; i.e., it cannot revert any more to its original status [as a field of possession], but it can be redeemed so as to be considered a field acquired by purchase. Now what of it?3 — Come and hear: R. Eliezer said, If the owner redeemed it in the second Jubilee [cycle] it goes out to the priest in the [next] Jubilee.4 Said Rabina to R. Ashi: But did we not learn thus: R. ELIEZER SAID, THE PRIESTS NEVER ENTER INTO POSSESSION THEREOF UNTIL SOMEONE ELSE HAS REDEEMED IT? — He replied: The owner is considered as someone else in the second Jubilee [cycle]. Others say, R. Eliezer said: If he [the owner] redeems it during the second Jubilee [cycle], it does not go out to the priests at the Jubilee. Whereupon Rabina said to R. Ashi: We also learnt likewise: R. ELIEZER SAID, THE PRIESTS NEVER ENTER INTO POSSESSION THEREOF UNTIL SOMEONE ELSE HAS REDEEMED IT. — He replied: If we [knew it only] from our Mishnah, I might have assumed that the owner during the second Jubilee [cycle] is considered like someone else, therefore we are informed [otherwise].5 MISHNAH. IF ONE BOUGHT A FIELD FROM HIS FATHER,6 AND HIS FATHER DIED AND AFTERWARDS HE CONSECRATED IT, IT IS CONSIDERED A FIELD OF POSSESSION.7 IF HE CONSECRATED IT AND AFTERWARDS HIS FATHER DIED, THEN IT IS CONSIDERED A FIELD ACQUIRED BY PURCHASE.8 THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. MEIR. R. JUDAH AND R. SIMEON SAY: [EVEN IN THE LATTER CASE] IT IS CONSIDERED A FIELD OF POSSESSION, AS IT IS SAID: ‘AND IF A FIELD WHICH HE HATH BOUGHT, WHICH IS NOT A FIELD OF HIS POSSESSION, I.E., A FIELD WHICH IS NOT CAPABLE OF BECOMING A FIELD OF HIS POSSESSION, THUS EXCLUDING A FIELD WHICH IS CAPABLE OF BECOMING A FIELD OF POSSESSION.9 A FIELD ACQUIRED BY PURCHASE DOES NOT GO OUT TO THE PRIESTS IN THE YEAR OF JUBILEE, FOR NO MAN CAN CONSECRATE AN OBJECT NOT BELONGING TO HIM.10 PRIESTS AND LEVITES MAY CONSECRATE [THEIR FIELDS] AT ANY TIME AND REDEEM AT ANY TIME, BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE JUBILEE. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: Whence do we know that if one bought a field from his father and consecrated it, and thereupon his father died, that it is to be considered his field of possession? Therefore it is said: ‘A field which he hath bought, which is not a field of his possession’, i.e., field which is not capable of becoming a field of his possessions excluding this, which is capable of becoming a field of his possession. These are the words of R. Judah and R. Simeon. R. Meir says: Whence do we know that if one bought a field from his father and his father died, and he thereupon consecrated it, that it be considered to him a field of his possession? Therefore it is said: ‘A field which he hath bought which is not a field of his possession’, i.e., a field which is not a field of his possession, excluding this, which is a field of his possession. Shall we say that they are conflicting about this [principle], R. Meir holding that the acquisition of usufruct is like the acquisition of the capital itself, whereas R. Judah and R. Simeon hold that the acquisition of usufruct is not like the acquisition of the soil itself?11 — Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: As a rule R. Simeon and R. Judah hold that the acquisition of usufruct is like the acquisition of the soil itself asked: Is the owner in the second cycle considered like someone else, so that when he redeems it the field will in the third Jubilee go out to the priests; or is he still considered the owner so that in the third Jubilee the field will revert to him, as it would have reverted to him had he redeemed it before the end of the first Jubilee. reverting to the priests. him at Jubilee. field of his possession. But if he consecrated it whilst his father was alive, it had not yet become his field of possession and remains therefore his field acquired by purchase. The difference is that a field acquired by purchase must be redeemed at its full value (instead of the fifty shekels for each piece of field sufficient for the sowing of a homer of barley. due in the case of a field of his possession); and, if he who consecrated it has not redeemed it, then when the year of Jubilee arrives, it does not go out to the priests but reverts then to its original owner. In our case It would revert to the father, and since he died, to his heirs. (potential) possession, it is considered his field of possession. But when he comes to redeem it, it must be his field of possession already, or else it will be regarded as a field acquired by purchase. ‘A field acquired by purchase’ is the term. techn. for any property acquired in any manner, as long as it was not inherited by its present owner. automatically. without any fee payable, to its original owner. Hence its purchase could not legally consecrate it, consecration being unlimited in time, whereas his limited rights are also limited by the year of Jubilee. Hence that field will not go out to the priests, but will revert to the original owner, whose field of possession it was, by inheritance. really own the soil, because in the year of Jubilee the soil would have reverted to his father, the original owner. R. Meir, however, would hold that the acquisition of the usufruct is like the acquisition of the soil itself. Therefore when he consecrated it in his father's lifetime, it was to be regarded as a field acquired by purchase, the soil belonging to him with the usufruct, whence it could no more acquire the status of a field of possession, with the rules relevant thereto. R. Judah and R. Simeon, on the other hand, hold that the acquisition of usufruct is not like the acquisition of the soil, hence it could become a field of possession only if the father died before the son consecrated it. This being a very obvious rule, no Scriptural law was necessary to teach what applies here. What required the Scriptural guidance was the case of his having consecrated the field before his father died to teach that although at the time of its consecration the field was one acquired by purchase, nevertheless since the father died before its being redeemed, it is considered a field of his possession. For the original purchase did not include the field, only the usufruct.