## Arakhin Daf 26a

###### Arakhin 26a:1
[Arakhin 26a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/26a:1)

מִקׇּדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת, וְאֵין דָּנִין קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת מִקׇּדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**from** that of other items **consecrated** for **Temple maintenance,** e.g., a consecrated house, **but one does not derive** the *halakha* with regard to items **consecrated** for **Temple maintenance from** items that are **consecrated** for the **altar,** such as the two lambs brought on *Shavuot*.


###### Arakhin 26a:2
[Arakhin 26a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/26a:2)

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן נָמֵי, נֵילַף מִמַּקְדִּישׁ בַּיִת! דָּנִין דָּבָר שֶׁמַּתָּנָה לַכֹּהֲנִים, מִדָּבָר שֶׁמַּתָּנָה לַכֹּהֲנִים, וְאֵין דָּנִין דָּבָר שֶׁמַּתָּנָה לַכֹּהֲנִים, מִדָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַתָּנָה לַכֹּהֲנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **And let Rabbi Shimon also derive** the *halakha* by means of a verbal analogy **from** one who **consecrates a house.** Why does he disagree with Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara explains: **One derives** the *halakha* of an **item that** is **a gift to the priests,** such as an ancestral field that is given to the priests during the Jubilee Year, **from** that of another **item that is a gift to the priests,** i.e., the two lambs brought on *Shavuot*, **but one does not derive** the *halakha* of an **item that is a gift to the priests from** that of an **item that is not a gift to the priests,** i.e., a consecrated house.


###### Arakhin 26a:3
[Arakhin 26a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/26a:3)

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: לֹא נִכְנָסִין, וְלֹא נוֹתְנִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if one consecrates his ancestral field and it is not redeemed before the Jubilee, **Rabbi Eliezer says:** The priests **do not enter** into the field, **and** they also **do not give** its redemption payment to the Temple treasury. According to Rabbi Eliezer, the priests do not obtain possession of a consecrated field during the Jubilee Year unless another person redeemed it first.


###### Arakhin 26a:4
[Arakhin 26a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/26a:4)

אָמַר רַבָּה: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאִם לֹא יִגְאַל אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה לֹא יִגָּאֵל עוֹד, וְאִם מָכַר אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה וְהָיָה הַשָּׂדֶה בְּצֵאתוֹ בַיּוֹבֵל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba said: What is the reason for Rabbi Eliezer’s** opinion? It is because 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, as a dedicated field; his ancestral possession shall be for the priest” (Leviticus 27:20–21). According to Rabba, Rabbi Eliezer maintains that these verses teach two separate *halakhot*, and should be read as follows: **“And if he will not redeem the field…it shall not be redeemed anymore,”** as an ancestral field, and: **“Or if he sold the field…But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee…**his ancestral possession shall be for the priest.” Accordingly, if the field has not yet been sold to another man, it is not transferred to the priests during the Jubilee.


###### Arakhin 26a:5
[Arakhin 26a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/26a:5)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: סַכִּינָא חֲרִיפָא מַפְסְקָא קְרָאֵי? אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר כִּדְתַנְיָא: ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״ — יָכוֹל לֹא תְּהֵא נִגְאֶלֶת שֶׁתְּהֵא לְפָנָיו כִּשְׂדֵה מִקְנָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עוֹד״ — לִכְמוֹת שֶׁהָיְתָה אֵינָהּ נִגְאֶלֶת, אֲבָל נִגְאֶלֶת שֶׁתְּהֵא לְפָנָיו כִּשְׂדֵה מִקְנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said:** Does **a sharp knife cut** through the **verses,** that they may be interpreted by reading the words out of order? **Rather, Abaye said: The reason for Rabbi Eliezer’s** opinion is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: Since 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,”** one **might** have thought that this means **it shall not be redeemed** at all by its owner, even **for it to be** treated **for him like a purchased field,** which remains in his possession until the Jubilee. Therefore, **the verse states: “Anymore,”** indicating that **it shall not be redeemed** in order for it **to** return to **the way it was,** i.e., to regain the status of an ancestral field, **but it** may be **redeemed for it to be** treated **for him like a purchased field.**


###### Arakhin 26a:6
[Arakhin 26a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/26a:6)

אֵימַת? אִילֵּימָא בְּיוֹבֵל רִאשׁוֹן — אַמַּאי אֵינָהּ נִגְאֶלֶת? שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה נָמֵי הָוְיָא! אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא בְּיוֹבֵל שֵׁנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye continues: According to this *baraita*, of **when,** i.e., about which time period, is the verse speaking? **If we say** that it is referring to a redemption occurring **during the first Jubilee** cycle in which the field was consecrated, then **why may it not be redeemed** in order for it to return to the way it was? At that point, **it is even** redeemable as **an ancestral field,** because if the owner redeems it then, it is not removed from his possession during the Jubilee Year. **Rather,** it is **obvious** that the *baraita* interprets the verse as referring to a redemption occurring **during the second Jubilee** cycle.


###### Arakhin 26a:7
[Arakhin 26a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/26a:7)

וּלְמַאן? אִילֵימָא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, לְכֹהֲנִים נָפְקָא! אֶלָּא לָאו רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מֵהָכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And according to whose** opinion is this *baraita*? **If we say** that it is **according to** either **Rabbi Yehuda or Rabbi Shimon,** this cannot be correct, as according to them, the field **leaves** the possession of the Temple treasury and is given **to the priests** during the first Jubilee Year, after which it may no longer be redeemed. **Rather, is it not** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer,** who maintains that the field remains in the possession of the Temple treasury until it is redeemed, even during a subsequent Jubilee cycle? **And** consequently, **conclude from** this *baraita* that **the reason for Rabbi Eliezer’s** opinion is **from here,** i.e., from the superfluous term “anymore.”


###### Arakhin 26a:8
[Arakhin 26a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/26a:8)

וְתִסְבְּרָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַאי ״עוֹד״ מַאי דָּרְשִׁי בֵּיהּ? אֶלָּא, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — בְּשָׂדֶה שֶׁיָּצְאָה לַכֹּהֲנִים, וְהִקְדִּישָׁהּ כֹּהֵן, וְאָתוּ בְּעָלִים לְמִיפְרְקַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And can you understand** the *baraita* this way? If so, then **what do Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon derive from this** term: **“Anymore”? Rather,** the *baraita* can be understood in accordance with their opinions as well, and **what are we dealing with here?** We are dealing **with** an ancestral **field** whose owner consecrated it and did not redeem it, **which left** the possession of the Temple treasury and was given **to the priests** during the first Jubilee Year; **and** the **priest** who received the field then **consecrated it, and** then the original **owner came to redeem it** from the Temple treasury.


###### Arakhin 26a:9
[Arakhin 26a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/26a:9)

סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: לָא תִּיפְרוֹק, שֶׁתְּהֵא לְפָנָיו כִּשְׂדֵה מִקְנָה — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עוֹד״, לִכְמוֹת שֶׁהָיְתָה אֵינָהּ נִגְאֶלֶת, אֲבָל נִגְאֶלֶת שֶׁתְּהֵא לְפָנָיו כִּשְׂדֵה מִקְנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It might **enter your mind to say:** Since the owner failed to redeem this field during the first Jubilee cycle, **it shall not be redeemed** by him at all, even **for it to be** treated **for him like a purchased field.** Therefore, **the verse states: “Anymore,”** indicating that **it shall not be redeemed** in order for it **to** return to **the way it was,** i.e., an ancestral field, **but it** may be **redeemed for it to be** treated **for him like a purchased field,** which remains in his possession only until the Jubilee Year.


###### Arakhin 26a:10
[Arakhin 26a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/26a:10)

וְהָתַנְיָא: ״בִּשְׁנַת הַיּוֹבֵל יָשׁוּב הַשָּׂדֶה לַאֲשֶׁר קָנָהוּ מֵאִתּוֹ״, יָכוֹל יַחְזוֹר לַגִּזְבָּר שֶׁלְּקָחוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לַאֲשֶׁר לוֹ אֲחֻזַּת הָאָרֶץ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** similarly, **it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to one who consecrated a purchased field and redeemed it, since the verse states: **“In the Jubilee Year the field shall return to the one from whom it was bought”** (Leviticus 27:24), one **might** have thought that the field **shall return to the** Temple **treasurer, from whom he bought it** when he redeemed it. Therefore, **the verse states** immediately afterward: **“To the one to whom the possession of the land belongs,”** i.e., it goes to the ancestral owner who initially sold the field to the one who consecrated it.


###### Arakhin 26a:11
[Arakhin 26a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/26a:11)

יֵאָמֵר: ״לַאֲשֶׁר לוֹ אֲחֻזַּת הָאָרֶץ״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לַאֲשֶׁר קָנָהוּ מֵאִתּוֹ״? שָׂדֶה שֶׁיָּצָאת לַכֹּהֲנִים, וּמְכָרָהּ כֹּהֵן, וְהִקְדִּישָׁהּ לוֹקֵחַ, וּגְאָלָהּ אַחֵר — יָכוֹל תַּחְזוֹר לַבְּעָלִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לַאֲשֶׁר קָנָהוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: If so, **let** the verse simply **state: “To the one to whom the possession of the land belongs.” Why** must **the verse state** first: **“To the one from whom it was bought”?** The *baraita* answers: The verse is referring to an ancestral **field** whose owner consecrated it and did not redeem it, **which left** the possession of the Temple treasury and was given **to the priests** during the Jubilee Year, **and** the **priest** who received the field then **sold it** to another, **and** the **buyer** then **consecrated it, and another** person **redeemed it** from the Temple treasury. One **might** have thought that when the next Jubilee arrives, **it shall return to the original owner.** Therefore, **the verse states:** “In the Jubilee Year the field shall return **to the one** from whom **it was bought,”** indicating that the field is returned to the priest who sold the field.


###### Arakhin 26a:12
[Arakhin 26a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/26a:12)

וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״, וְאִיצְטְרִיכָא לְמִיכְתַּב ״לַאֲשֶׁר קָנָהוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And** it **was necessary** for the Torah to write: **“It shall not be redeemed,” and** it **was** also **necessary** for it **to write: “To the one** from whom **it was bought,”** despite the fact both phrases apparently teach the same *halakha*, i.e., that after a consecrated ancestral field is left unredeemed and given to the priests during the Jubilee Year, it never returns to the original owner.


###### Arakhin 26a:13
[Arakhin 26a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/26a:13)

דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״, דְּלָא קָא הָדְרָה כְּלָל, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּקָא הָדְרָה, תִּיהְדַּר לְמָרַהּ קַמָּא, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״לַאֲשֶׁר קָנָהוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Because if the Merciful One had written** only: **“It shall not be redeemed,”** one might have thought that the field does not return to the original owner only in a case where the priest consecrates the field and the original owner redeems it, **as** an ancestral field that is consecrated by its owner and redeemed by another **does not return at all,** but is divided among the priests. **But here,** where the priest sold the field that he received and the field was consecrated by the buyer as a purchased field and subsequently redeemed by another, **as** the field **does return** to its owner in the Jubilee Year, perhaps **it should return to its original owner,** and not the priest. Therefore, **the Merciful One wrote: “To the one** from whom **it was bought,”** indicating that it returns to the priest.


###### Arakhin 26a:14
[Arakhin 26a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/26a:14)

וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״לַאֲשֶׁר קָנָהוּ״, דְּלָא קָא יָהֲבִי בְּעָלִים דָּמֵי, אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּקָא יָהֲבִי דְּמֵי, תֵּיקוּם בִּידַיְיהוּ, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if the Merciful One had written** only: **“To the one** from whom **it was bought,”** one might have thought that the field does not return to its original owner during the Jubilee Year only in a case where the priest sold it and the buyer consecrated it, **as the owner did not give** any **payment for** the field to the Temple treasury. **But here,** where the priest consecrated the field and its original owner redeemed it, **as he gives payment for** the field to the Temple treasury, perhaps **it should remain in his hands** as his ancestral field. Therefore, **the Merciful One wrote: “It shall not be redeemed.”**


###### Arakhin 26a:15
[Arakhin 26a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/26a:15)

וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״, וְלָא כְּתַב ״עוֹד״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: לָא תִּיפְרוֹק כְּלָל, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״עוֹד״, לִכְמוֹת שֶׁהָיְתָה אֵינָהּ נִגְאֶלֶת, אֲבָל נִגְאֶלֶת שֶׁתְּהֵא לְפָנָיו כִּשְׂדֵה מִקְנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if the Merciful One had written** only: **“It shall not be redeemed,” and did not write: “Anymore,” I would say** that **it shall not be redeemed at all,** as its original owner failed to redeem it during the first Jubilee cycle. Therefore, **the Merciful One writes: “Anymore,”** to indicate that **it shall not be redeemed** in order for it **to** return to **the way it was,** i.e., an ancestral field, **but it** may be **redeemed for it to be** treated **for him like a purchased field.**


###### Arakhin 26a:16
[Arakhin 26a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/26a:16)

מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ? אָמַר רָבָא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהָיָה הַשָּׂדֶה בְּצֵאתוֹ בַיּוֹבֵל״, בְּצֵאתוֹ מִיַּד אַחֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** conclusion **was** reached **about it?** In other words, now that both suggestions have been rejected, what is the reason for Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion that a consecrated ancestral field that has not been redeemed by the Jubilee Year is not given to the priests? **Rava said** that the **verse states: “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 27:21). The term “when it goes out” indicates that it is given to the priests only **when it goes out** during the Jubilee Year **from the possession of another** person, who redeemed it from the Temple treasury.