Arakhin

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. 1 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.2 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,3 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]4 but it can be redeemed to become to him like a field acquired by purchase.5 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]!6 You must hence say it is in accord with R. Eliezer, which proves that R. Eliezer infers his reason from here.7 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],8 and which the priests thereupon consecrated,9 and now the [original] owner comes to redeem it. You might have assumed that it cannot be redeemed [by the owner]10 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.11 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.11 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’.12 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],13 but here where it reverts [to the one who consecrated it],14 [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,15 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?16 — 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 XXVII, 21); that is not the case with the consecration of a house, the value of which goes to the fund for Temple repairs. any more, but if he (the treasurer of the Sanctuary) sells it, then the field goes out on Jubilee to the priests. This implies that if the treasurer does not sell it the priests do not enter into possession of the field. and consequently the field can still be redeemed, hence the exposition of the cited verse. comes to teach us that since it was not bought from him but was acquired from the Sanctuary it reverts to the priest, from whom the purchaser had acquired it before consecrating the field. And similarly in the case of a field of possession, once another redeems it and it gets into the possession of the priest at Jubilee, the owner can no longer redeem it as his field of possession. case the field on the next Jubilee goes out to all the priests and not to the priest who consecrated it, and similarly the original owner cannot claim it as a field of possession. someone redeems it from the Sanctuary does not go out to the priests on Jubilee, but reverts to the consecrator. redeemed it. then shall it go out to the priests as their field of possession.