## Arakhin Daf 25b

###### Arakhin 25b:1
[Arakhin 25b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/25b:1)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that if one consecrated his ancestral field and his son redeemed it from the Temple treasury, the field returns to the original owner when the Jubilee arrives. By contrast, if another person redeemed it, the field is transferred to the priests during the Jubilee Year. With regard to this matter, **the Sages taught** a *baraita* analyzing the verse: “And if he will not redeem the field, or if he sold the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed anymore. But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy for the Lord, as a dedicated field; his ancestral possession shall be for the priest” (Leviticus 27:20–21).


###### Arakhin 25b:2
[Arakhin 25b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/25b:2)

״אִם לֹא יִגְאַל אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה״ — בְּעָלִים, ״וְאִם מָכַר אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה״ — גִּיזְבָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The phrase “and **if he will not redeem the field”** is referring to a case where the **owner** did not redeem it and it remained in the possession of the Temple treasury, and the phrase **“or if he sold the field”** is referring to a situation where the Temple **treasurer** sold it to another person. The verse indicates that in both of these instances, possession of the field goes to the priests.


###### Arakhin 25b:3
[Arakhin 25b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/25b:3)

״לְאִישׁ אַחֵר״ — לְאַחֵר, וְלֹא לַבֵּן. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: לְאַחֵר וְלֹא לַבֵּן, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְאַחֵר וְלֹא לָאָח? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״אִישׁ״ — הֲרֵי אָח אָמוּר, הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״אַחֵר״ — וְלֹא לַבֵּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **“To another man,”** indicates that the field is transferred to the priests during the Jubilee Year only if it had been sold **to another, and not to** the **son** of the one who consecrated it. The *baraita* asks: **Do you say** that the verse is referring **to another and not to** his **son? Or** perhaps the verse means **only** that it was sold **to another and not to** his **brother?** The *baraita* rejects this suggestion: **When it says: “Man,”** the **brother is stated,** i.e., he is included in the category of a man. **How do I realize** the meaning of: **“Another** man”? It must mean: Another, **but not** his **son.**


###### Arakhin 25b:4
[Arakhin 25b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/25b:4)

וּמָה רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַבֵּן וּלְהוֹצִיא אֶת הָאָח? מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי הַבֵּן, שֶׁכֵּן קָם תַּחַת אָבִיו לִיעִידָה וּלְעֶבֶד עִבְרִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* asks: **And what did you see to include the son** in the same category as the father, **and to exclude the brother?** The *baraita* answers: **I include the son, as he stands in place of his father with regard to designating** a Hebrew maidservant as a wife for himself, in a case where the father purchased the Hebrew maidservant and designates her as a wife for his son, which he cannot do for his brother. **And** he also stands in place of his father **with regard to a Hebrew slave,** as when one inherits a Hebrew slave from his father, the slave is obligated to serve the son and does not go free, whereas if the deceased’s brother inherits the servant, he goes free.


###### Arakhin 25b:5
[Arakhin 25b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/25b:5)

אַדְּרַבָּה, מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי אֶת הָאָח, שֶׁכֵּן קָם תַּחַת אָחִיו לְיִיבּוּם. כְּלוּם יֵשׁ יִבּוּם אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין בֵּן? הָא יֵשׁ בֵּן — אֵין יִבּוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* objects: **On the contrary, I** should **include the brother, as he stands in his brother’s place with regard to levirate marriage,** which a son does not. The *baraita* rejects this suggestion: **Is there ever a case of levirate marriage other than a case where there is no son? In a case where there is a son there is no levirate marriage.** This indicates that with regard to levirate marriage as well, a son stands in place of the deceased more than a brother of the deceased.


###### Arakhin 25b:6
[Arakhin 25b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/25b:6)

וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ, דְּהָכָא תַּרְתֵּי, וְהָכָא חֲדָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to answer the question in this way? Let one **derive** the *halakha* that the son stands in place of the father, and the brother does not, from the simple fact **that here,** in support of extending the father’s status to the son, there are **two** justifications, i.e., the *halakha* of designation of the Hebrew maidservant and the *halakha* of the Hebrew slave, **and there,** in support of extending it to the brother, there is only **one** justification, i.e., the *halakha* of levirate marriage?


###### Arakhin 25b:7
[Arakhin 25b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/25b:7)

מִשּׁוּם דְּעֶבֶד עִבְרִי מֵהַאי פִּירְכָא נָמֵי הוּא דְּנָפְקָא לֵיהּ: כְּלוּם יֵשׁ יִבּוּם אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין בֵּן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: That answer is invalid **because** the *halakha* **that** a son, but not a brother, stands in place of his father with regard to **a Hebrew slave** is not written explicitly in the Torah, but the *tanna* **also derives it from this** same **refutation,** namely: **Is there ever a case of levirate marriage other than a case where there is no son.** Without this refutation there would not be more justifications in support of extending the father’s status to the son rather than to the brother. Accordingly, this last refutation is the basis for the conclusion.


###### Arakhin 25b:8
[Arakhin 25b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/25b:8)

בָּעֵי רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: בַּת מַהוּ שֶׁתַּעֲמִיד שָׂדֶה לְאָבִיהָ? כֵּיוָן דִּלְעִנְיַן יִבּוּם, בֵּן וּבַת כִּי הֲדָדֵי פָּטְרִי — מוֹקְמָה, אוֹ דִילְמָא כֵּיוָן דִּלְעִנְיַן נַחֲלָה, בַּת בִּמְקוֹם בֵּן כִּי אַחֵר דָּמְיָא — לָא מוֹקְמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabba bar Avuh raises a dilemma:** If **a daughter** redeemed the ancestral field that her father consecrated, **what is** the *halakha*? Does **she** thereby **preserve** possession of the **field for her father** at the Jubilee Year, like a son? Rabba bar Avuh explains the two sides of the dilemma: Perhaps the *halakha* is that **since with regard to levirate marriage, a son and a daughter** are **like one another,** as both **exempt** their father’s widow from the obligation of levirate marriage, the daughter **preserves** possession of the field for her father. **Or perhaps** the *halakha* is that **since with regard to inheritance, when** there is **a son, a daughter is considered like another** person, as she does not inherit a share of her father’s estate, she **does not preserve** possession of the field for her father.


###### Arakhin 25b:9
[Arakhin 25b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/25b:9)

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: כֹּל שֶׁהוּא אַחֵר בִּמְקוֹם בֵּן, וְהָא נָמֵי בִּמְקוֹם בֵּן כִּי אַחֵר דָּמְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from a *baraita* **that the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Anyone who is** considered like **another** person **when** there is **a son** does not preserve possession of the field for the owner. **And** with regard to **this,** i.e., a daughter, **as well, when** there is **a son,** she is **considered like another** person.


###### Arakhin 25b:10
[Arakhin 25b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/25b:10)

בָּעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: אִשָּׁה מִי מַעֲמִיד לָהּ שָׂדֶה? בַּעַל מוֹקֵים לַהּ, שֶׁכֵּן יוֹרְשָׁהּ, אוֹ דִילְמָא בֵּן מוֹקֵים לַהּ, שֶׁכֵּן נוֹטֵל בָּרָאוּי כְּבַמּוּחְזָק? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma:** If **a woman** consecrated her ancestral field, **which** of her heirs can redeem the field and thereby **preserve** possession of the **field for her** during the Jubilee Year? Can her **husband preserve** it **for her, as** he **inherits** from **her** if she dies during his lifetime? **Or perhaps** her **son** can **preserve** if **for her, as** if the son inherits from his mother, when she was not married at the time of her death, he **takes** in inheritance the property **due** to her **as** he does the property she **possessed?** There is a *halakha* that if someone dies and his heir is a woman who is already deceased, her son inherits that property, not her late husband. No resolution is offered, and therefore the Gemara states that the dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Arakhin 25b:11
[Arakhin 25b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/25b:11)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא מֵרַב חִסְדָּא: הִקְדִּישָׁהּ פָּחוֹת מִשְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים לִפְנֵי הַיּוֹבֵל, מַהוּ שֶׁתֵּצֵא לַכֹּהֲנִים?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rami bar Ḥama raised a dilemma** before **Rav Ḥisda:** If one **consecrated** his ancestral field **less than two years before the Jubilee** Year and did not redeem it, **what is** the *halakha* with regard to whether or not **it is** to be **removed** from his possession during the Jubilee and given **to the priests?**


###### Arakhin 25b:12
[Arakhin 25b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/25b:12)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי דַּעְתָּיךְ? ״וְנִגְרַע מֵעֶרְכֶּךָ... וְהָיָה הַשָּׂדֶה בְּצֵאתוֹ בַיּוֹבֵל״ — דְּבַת גֵּירָעוֹן — אִין, דְּלָאו בַּת גֵּירָעוֹן — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ḥisda **said to him: What is your reasoning?** Is it that since the verse states: **“And a deduction shall be made from your valuation”** (Leviticus 27:18), which indicates that the field is redeemed with a deduction according to the years remaining until the Jubilee Year, and the verse also states: **“But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee,** shall be holy for the Lord…his ancestral possession shall be for the priest” (Leviticus 27:21), this indicates **that** if the field **is fit for deduction,** then **yes,** when it is not redeemed by the owner it is given to the priests at the Jubilee Year, but with regard to a field **that is not fit for deduction,** i.e., one consecrated less than two years before the Jubilee Year, which must be redeemed according to its full valuation (24a), **no,** it is not given to the priests but rather is returned to the owner?


###### Arakhin 25b:13
[Arakhin 25b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/25b:13)

אַדְּרַבָּה, ״אִם לֹא יִגְאַל הַשָּׂדֶה... וְהָיָה הַשָּׂדֶה בְּצֵאתוֹ בַיּוֹבֵל״, וְהַאי נָמֵי בַּת גְּאוּלָּה הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ḥisda responds: **On the contrary,** the verse states: “And **if he will not redeem the field,** or if he sold the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed anymore. **But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee,** shall be holy for the Lord…his ancestral possession shall be for the priest” (Leviticus 27:20–21). This indicates that any field that could have been redeemed but was not redeemed becomes the possession of the priests. **And this** field, which was consecrated less than two years before the Jubilee Year, **is also fit for redemption.** Therefore, if it was not redeemed it is given to the priests.


###### Arakhin 25b:14
[Arakhin 25b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/25b:14)

גְּאָלָהּ אֶחָד מִן הַכֹּהֲנִים כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״לַכֹּהֵן תִּהְיֶה אֲחוּזָּתוֹ״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If **one of the priests redeemed** the field and when the Jubilee Year arrived it was in his possession, he may not say: Since it is removed from the possession of the one who redeemed it and given to the priests during the Jubilee Year, and since it is already in my possession, it is mine. Rather, the field is removed from his possession and is divided among all of his brethren, the priests. With regard to this *halakha*, **the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **Why** must **the verse state:** “But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy for the Lord…**his ancestral possession shall be for the priest”** (Leviticus 27:21)?


###### Arakhin 25b:15
[Arakhin 25b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/25b:15)

מִנַּיִן לְשָׂדֶה שֶׁיּוֹצָא לַכֹּהֲנִים בַּיּוֹבֵל, וּגְאָלָהּ אֶחָד מִן הַכֹּהֲנִים, מִנַּיִן שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר: ״הוֹאִיל וְיוֹצְאָה לַכֹּהֵן, הֲרֵי תַּחַת יָדִי, וּתְהֵא שֶׁלִּי?״ וְדִין הוּא: בְּשֶׁל אֲחֵרִים אֲנִי זוֹכֶה, בְּשֶׁל עַצְמִי לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* explains: **From where** is it derived, **with regard to a field that** was consecrated and not redeemed by the owner, and therefore **was** to have been **removed** from the possession of the owner and given **to the priests during the Jubilee** Year, **and one of the priests redeemed it** before the Jubilee, **from where** is it derived **that he may not say: Since it is removed** from the possession of the owner and given **to the priest** at the Jubilee, **and** since it is already **in my possession,** it **should** therefore **be mine? And this** claim is supported by **a logical inference:** Since in the Jubilee Year **I obtain** fields **of others** that I did not previously redeem, is it **not all the more so** clear **that** I should retain **my own** field that I redeemed from the Temple treasury myself?


###### Arakhin 25b:16
[Arakhin 25b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/25b:16)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲחוּזָּתוֹ״, אֲחוּזָּה שֶׁלּוֹ, וְאֵין זֶה שֶׁלּוֹ. הָא כֵּיצַד? יוֹצָא מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ וּמִתְחַלֶּקֶת לְאֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, **the verse states: “His ancestral possession,”** which can be interpreted to mean that only **his ancestral** field, i.e., one that the priest inherited from his own ancestors, is automatically his, **but this** field **is not his. How so,** i.e., how is this field treated? **It is removed from his possession and is divided among** all of **his brethren, the priests.**


###### Arakhin 25b:17
[Arakhin 25b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/25b:17)

**מַתְנִי׳** הִגִּיעַ יוֹבֵל וְלֹא נִגְאֲלָה, הַכֹּהֲנִים נִכְנָסִין לְתוֹכָהּ וְנוֹתְנִין אֶת דָּמֶיהָ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: נִכְנָסִין וְלֹא נוֹתְנִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If one consecrated his ancestral field and the **Jubilee** Year **arrived and it was not redeemed** by the owner or anyone else, **the priests enter into** the field **and give its** redemption **payment** to the Temple treasury; this is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: They enter** into the field, **but they do not give** its redemption payment to the Temple treasury.


###### Arakhin 25b:18
[Arakhin 25b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/25b:18)

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: לֹא נִכְנָסִין וְלֹא נוֹתְנִין, אֶלָּא נִקְרֵאת ״שְׂדֵה רְטוּשִׁין״ עַד הַיּוֹבֵל הַשֵּׁנִי. הִגִּיעַ הַיּוֹבֵל הַשֵּׁנִי וְלֹא נִגְאֲלָה, נִקְרֵאת ״רְטוּשֵׁי רְטוּשִׁין״ עַד הַיּוֹבֵל הַשְּׁלִישִׁי. לְעוֹלָם אֵין הַכֹּהֲנִים נִכְנָסִין לְתוֹכָהּ עַד שֶׁיִּגְאָלֶנָּה אַחֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Eliezer says:** The priests **do not enter** into the field, **and** they also **do not give** its redemption payment to the Temple treasury. **Rather,** the field remains in the possession of the Temple treasury, and **it is called: An abandoned field, until the second Jubilee** Year. If **the second Jubilee arrived and it was** still **not redeemed, it is called: An abandoned** field from among the **abandoned** fields, meaning one that was abandoned twice, **until the third Jubilee.** In any case, **the priests never enter into** a consecrated field during the Jubilee Year **until another** person **redeems it** first.


###### Arakhin 25b:19
[Arakhin 25b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/25b:19)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? גָּמַר ״קֹדֶשׁ״ ״קֹדֶשׁ״ מִמַּקְדִּישׁ בַּיִת,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda’s** opinion that the priests who enter into an unredeemed consecrated field during the Jubilee Year must give its redemption payment to the Temple treasury? The Gemara answers: **He derives** this *halakha* from a verbal analogy **from** the word **“holy”** stated in reference to an ancestral field, and the word **“holy”** that appears with regard to one who **consecrates a house.**


###### Arakhin 25b:20
[Arakhin 25b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/25b:20)

מָה לְהַלָּן בְּדָמִים — אַף כָּאן בְּדָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Just as there,** with regard to one who consecrates a house, where the verse states: “And when a man shall consecrate his house to be holy for the Lord” (Leviticus 27:14), it can be redeemed from the Temple treasury only **by** payment of **money,** as the verse concludes: “As the priest shall value it, so shall it stand,” **so too here,** where the verse states with regard to the priests entering into an ancestral field: “But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy for the Lord…his ancestral possession shall be for the priest” (Leviticus 27:21), the priests can enter the field only **by** payment of **money.**


###### Arakhin 25b:21
[Arakhin 25b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/25b:21)

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, גָּמַר ״קֹדֶשׁ״ ״קֹדֶשׁ״ מִכִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת, מָה לְהַלָּן בְּחִנָּם, אַף כָּאן בְּחִנָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** what is the source for the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** who maintains that the priests are not required to give the redemption payment to the Temple treasury? The Gemara answers: He **derives** the *halakha* **from** the word **“holy”** used with regard to an ancestral field, and the word **“holy”** used with regard to the communal peace offering of two **lambs** that accompanies the two loaves on ***Shavuot*. Just as there,** with regard to the offering of two lambs, where the verse states: “They shall be holy to the Lord for the priest” (Leviticus 23:20), the lambs are given to the priests **for free,** as is the *halakha* with regard to all offerings to which members of the priesthood are entitled, **so too here,** the consecrated and unredeemed ancestral field is given to the priests **for free.**


###### Arakhin 25b:22
[Arakhin 25b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/25b:22)

וְרַבִּי [יְהוּדָה] נָמֵי נֵילַיף מִכִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת! דָּנִין קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** as for **Rabbi Yehuda, let him also derive** the *halakha* by a verbal analogy **from** the two **lambs** brought on ***Shavuot*.** Why does he disagree with Rabbi Shimon? The Gemara answers: **One derives** the *halakha* with regard to items **consecrated** for **Temple maintenance,** such as an ancestral field,