Arakhin

GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: And if he will not redeem the field,1 i.e., the owner. Or if he have sold the field,1 i.e., the treasurer [of the Sanctuary]. To another man,1 I.e., to another man but not to his son.2 You say, ‘to another man’ [means] not to his son! But perhaps, ‘to another man’ [means] not to his brother? Since Scripture says, ‘man’, the brother is included, hence how explain [the word] ‘other’, [it means to] exclude the son. Why do you choose to include the son and exclude the brother? — I include the son because he arises in his father's place, for the purpose of ‘designation’,3 and in regard to a Hebrew slave.4 On the contrary! I would include the brother because he arises in his brother's place in regard to the levirate duty?5 [This is no argument.] For is there any levirate duty in any condition but where there be no son? Surely if there is a son, no levirate duty is involved.6 But infer it from the fact that here [in the son's case] there are two points [in his favour], whereas there [in the brother's case] there is only one! — [The preference for a son in the case of] a Hebrew slave is similarly inferred from the same refutation: Is there any levirate duty in any other condition but where there be no son?7 Rabbah b. Abbuha asked: Could a daughter preserve a field for her father? [Shall I say,] Since with regard to the levirate obligation, both son and daughter alike effect exemption,8 she therefore can preserve [the field], or perhaps, since in respect of inheritance the daughter, where there is a son, is considered an outsider,9 she cannot preserve [the field]? — Come and hear, for the School of R. Ishmael taught: ‘Whosoever is considered an outsider where there is a son cannot preserve [the field]’, and she, too, is considered an outsider where there is a son. R. Zeirah asked: Who can preserve the field for a woman? [Shall I say,] The husband can preserve it for her, since he inherits here, or perhaps the son can preserve it for her, because he takes of what is coming due [to the estate] as he does of what is held in actual possession?10 — The question remains unanswered. Rama b. Hama asked of R. Hisda: If one dedicates [his field] less than two years before the year of Jubilee, does it go out to the priests?11 He replied: What do you think? Because: ‘An abatement shall be made from thy valuation . . . but the field when it goeth out in the Jubilee’12 [from which you would infer] that [the law13 applies] only to [a field] subject to the law of deduction, but not to one which is not subject to the law of deduction? On the contrary! [Scripture says:] And if he will not redeem the field . . . the field, when it goeth out in the Jubilee, etc.,14 and this field too is subject to redemption. IF ONE OF THE PRIESTS REDEEMED IT. Our Rabbis taught: The possession thereof shall be the priest's,15 what does that come to teach? [The following:] Whence do we know that if a field is to go out on Jubilee to the priests and one of the priests redeems it, that he cannot say: Since it would go out to a priest [anyway] and it is in my possession now, let it belong to me, on an argument ad majus: ‘If I can acquire title to something belonging to others, how much more to something belonging to myself’, therefore the text reads: ‘[his] possession’;16 a possession which is his, but this one is not his. How then [do we deal with such a field]? It goes out of his hand and is distributed among his brethren the priests. MISHNAH. IF THE YEAR OF JUBILEE ARRIVED AND IT WAS NOT YET REDEEMED THEN THE PRIESTS ENTER INTO POSSESSION THEREOF AND PAY ITS VALUE.17 THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. JUDAH. R. SIMEON SAYS: THEY ENTER [INTO POSSESSION] BUT THEY DO NOT PAY [ITS VALUE]. R. ELIEZER SAYS: THEY NEITHER ENTER [INTO POSSESSION] NOR PAY [ITS VALUE]. BUT IT IS CALLED AN ABANDONED FIELD UNTIL THE SECOND JUBILEE. IF THE SECOND JUBILEE HAS ARRIVED AND IT WAS NOT YET REDEEMED, IT IS CALLED A ‘TWICE ABANDONED FIELD’18 UNTIL THE THIRD JUBILEE. THE PRIESTS NEVER ENTER INTO POSSESSION THEREOF UNTIL SOMEONE ELSE HAD REDEEMED IT.19 GEMARA. What is the reason of R. Judah's view? — He derives it from [the analogous]: ‘holy’, ‘holy’ [written] with the consecration of a house.20 Just as there [a redemption is impossible without] payment of money, so here also payment of money [is mandatory]. And R. Simeon? — He derives it from [the analogous]: ‘holy’, ‘holy’ [written] with the lambs of the Feast of Weeks.21 Just as there [the priest obtains them] without money, so here, too, without money. But let R. Judah, too, infer it from the lambs of the Feast of Weeks? — One may make inference for objects consecrated to repairs of the Sanctuary into his father's rights. due to his father. married abroad unto one not of his kin. Her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife. incestuous. Hence the brother plays a role only when there is no son. argument, v. Kid. 17b; therefore in reality there is but one point in the son's favour, so that the balance between brother and son is restored, each of them having but one point in his favour. should she be able to preserve the field for her father by redeeming it so that in the year of Jubilee it would revert to her father. possession, whereas the husband does not obtain those still due, as he does those in her possession already. V. B.B. 113a. father, may belong exclusively to him, but not someone else's field of possession. Sanctuary; thereupon the field becomes their field of possession. might redeem the field for its original owner. to the Sanctuary, for the latter has already received such value from the person who redeemed the field.