## Arakhin Daf 26b

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

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: בְּעָלִים בְּיוֹבֵל שֵׁנִי, כְּאַחֵר דָּמוּ אוֹ לָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: According to Rabbi Eliezer, if the **owner** consecrated his ancestral field and failed to redeem it before the first Jubilee Year, but he redeemed it **during the second Jubilee** cycle, is he **considered like another** person who redeemed the field, in which case it is given to the priests at the following Jubilee Year, **or not,** i.e., as the one who ultimately redeemed the field first was the owner, does it remain in his possession as it would have if he had redeemed it during the first Jubilee cycle?


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

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״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:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a resolution of this dilemma from the following *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”** (Leviticus 27:20), 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.** 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.**


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara 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 that occurs **during the first Jubilee** cycle, in which the field was consecrated, **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, since 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 26b:4
[Arakhin 26b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/26b:4)

וּלְמַאן? אִי לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן — לְכֹהֲנִים נָפְקָא! אֶלָּא לָאו לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: בְּעָלִים בְּיוֹבֵל שֵׁנִי כְּאַחֵר דָּמוּ.

**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, you can **conclude from** this *baraita* that according to Rabbi Eliezer, an **owner** who redeems his ancestral field from the Temple treasury **during the second Jubilee** cycle is **considered like another,** as he may redeem it only for it to be treated like a purchased field.


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

וְתִסְבְּרַאּ?! רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַאי ״עוֹד״ מַאי דָּרְשִׁי בֵּיהּ? אֶלָּא, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בְּשָׂדֶה שֶׁיָּצְאָה לַכֹּהֲנִים, וְהִקְדִּישָׁהּ כֹּהֵן, וַאֲתוֹ בְּעָלִים לְמִיפְרְקַהּ. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: לָא תִּיפְרוֹק, שֶׁתְּהֵא כִּשְׂדֵה מִקְנָה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עוֹד״ — לִכְמוֹת שֶׁהָיְתָה אֵינָהּ נִגְאֶלֶת, אֲבָל נִגְאֶלֶת שֶׁתְּהֵא לְפָנָיו כִּשְׂדֵה מִקְנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And can you understand** the *baraita* this way? If so, **what do Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon derive from this** term: **“Anymore”? Rather, 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** at the first Jubilee Year; **and** the **priest** who received the field subsequently **consecrated it, and** then the original **owner came to redeem it** from the Temple treasury. It may **enter your mind to say:** Since the owner failed to redeem it 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.**


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

וְהָתַנְיָא: ״יָשׁוּב הַשָּׂדֶה לַאֲשֶׁר קָנָהוּ מֵאִתּוֹ״, יָכוֹל יַחְזוֹר לַגִּזְבָּר שֶׁלְּקָחָהּ הֵימֶנּוּ? 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: “To the one to whom the possession of the land belongs,”** i.e., the ancestral owner.


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

מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לַאֲשֶׁר קָנָהוּ״? שָׂדֶה שֶׁיָּצְאָה לַכֹּהֲנִים, וּמְכָרָהּ כֹּהֵן, וְהִקְדִּישָׁהּ לוֹקֵחַ, וּגְאָלָהּ אַחֵר — יָכוֹל תַּחְזוֹר לַבְּעָלִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לַאֲשֶׁר קָנָהוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: If so, **why** must **the verse state: “To the one** from whom **it was bought”?** The *baraita* answers: The verse is referring to an ancestral **field that** was consecrated and not redeemed, and which therefore **left** the possession of the Temple treasury and was given **to the priests** at 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 26b:8
[Arakhin 26b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/26b:8)

וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִיכְתַּב ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״, וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִיכְתַּב ״לַאֲשֶׁר קָנָהוּ״, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״ דְּלָא קָא הָדְרָא כְּלָל, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״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,” because if the Merciful One had written** merely: **“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 in a case where the priest sold the field to another and the buyer consecrated it, perhaps it should return to its original owner. Therefore, **the Merciful One wrote: “To the one** from whom **it was bought,”** indicating that it returns to the priest.


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

וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״לַאֲשֶׁר קָנָהוּ״, דְּלָא קָיָהֲבִי בְּעָלִים דְּמֵי, אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּיָהֲבִי בְּעָלִים דְּמֵי, דְּתֵיקוּם בִּידַיְהוּ, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if the Merciful One had written** merely: **“To the one** from whom **it was bought,”** one might think that the field does not return to its original owner at 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 the owner gives payment for** the field to the Temple treasury, one might have thought **that it should remain in his hands,** as his ancestral field. Therefore, **the Merciful One wrote: “It shall not be redeemed.”**


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

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, but it** may be **redeemed for it to be** treated **for him like a purchased field.**


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

מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ? תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: גְּאָלָהּ בְּעָלִים בְּיוֹבֵל שֵׁנִי — יוֹצְאָה לַכֹּהֲנִים בַּיּוֹבֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Since it has been established that the term “anymore” is necessary according to all opinions, **what** conclusion **was** reached **about** the original dilemma with regard to whether the owner is considered like another person during the second Jubilee cycle? The Gemara answers: **Come** and **hear** a proof from the following *baraita*: **Rabbi Eliezer says:** If the **owner redeemed it during the second Jubilee** cycle, it **leaves** the possession of the Temple treasury and is given **to the priests during the Jubilee** Year.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: הָאֲנַן לָא תְּנַן הָכִי, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֵין הַכֹּהֲנִים נִכְנָסִין לְתוֹכָהּ עַד שֶׁיִּגְאָלֶנָּה אַחֵר! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּעָלִים בְּיוֹבֵל שֵׁנִי כְּאַחֵר דָּמוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said to Rav Ashi: But we did not learn this** interpretation of Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion in the mishna. Instead, the mishna states that **Rabbi Eliezer says: The priests** never **enter into** a consecrated field during the Jubilee Year **until another** person **redeems it** first. This indicates that if the owner, rather than any other person, is the one who ultimately redeems the field, it remains in his possession even if he did so during the second Jubilee cycle. Rav Ashi **said to** Ravina: **During the second Jubilee** cycle, the **owner** is **considered like another** person.


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

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: גְּאָלָהּ בְּיוֹבֵל שֵׁנִי — אֵינָהּ יוֹצְאָה לַכֹּהֲנִים בַּיּוֹבֵל. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֵין הַכֹּהֲנִים נִכְנָסִין לְתוֹכָהּ עַד שֶׁיִּגְאָלֶנָּה אַחֵר! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי מִמַּתְנִיתִין הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: בְּעָלִים בְּיוֹבֵל שֵׁנִי כְּאַחֵר דָּמוּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Some say** a different version of the *baraita* and ensuing discussion: **Rabbi Eliezer says:** If the owner **redeemed it during the second Jubilee** cycle, it **does not leave** the possession of the Temple treasury and is not given **to the priests during the Jubilee** Year. **Ravina said to Rav Ashi:** Why must a proof be brought from this *baraita*? **We learn** in the mishna **as well** that **Rabbi Eliezer says: The priests** never **enter into** a consecrated field during the Jubilee Year **until another** person **redeems it** first. Rav Ashi **said to him: If** a proof is learned **from the mishna** alone **I would say** that **during the second Jubilee** cycle the **owner** is **considered like another** person. Therefore, the *baraita* **teaches us** that according to Rabbi Eliezer the owner is not considered like another person, and the field returns to him as an ancestral possession.


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

**מַתְנִי׳** הַלּוֹקֵחַ שָׂדֶה מֵאָבִיו, וּמֵת אָבִיו, וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְדִּישָׁהּ — הֲרֵי הִיא כִּשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה. הִקְדִּישָׁהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת אָבִיו — הֲרֵי הִיא כְּשָׂדֶה מִקְנָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **One who purchases** an ancestral **field from his father, and his father** subsequently **died and afterward** the son **consecrated it, its** halakhic status **is like** that of **an ancestral field,** as he inherited his father’s ancestral rights prior to the consecration. Consequently, the field’s redemption price is calculated on the basis of fifty *sela* per *beit kor*, and if another redeems it instead of the son, it is given to the priests during the Jubilee Year. But if the son **consecrated** the field **and afterward his father died, its** halakhic status **is like** that of **a purchased field,** whose redemption price is based on its monetary value, and which will return to the ancestral owner, i.e., the son, at the Jubilee; this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.**


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

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים: הֲרֵי הִיא כִּשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אִם מִשְּׂדֵה מִקְנָתוֹ אֲשֶׁר לֹא מִשְּׂדֵה אֲחֻזָּתוֹ״, שָׂדֶה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לִהְיוֹת שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה, יָצְתָה זוֹ שֶׁהִיא רְאוּיָה לִהְיוֹת שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon say:** Even in a case where the son consecrated the field before his father died, **its** halakhic status **is like** that of **an ancestral field, as it is stated** with regard to a purchased field: “And **if** he will consecrate unto the Lord **a field that he has bought, which is not of his ancestral field”** (Leviticus 27:22), indicating that this *halakha* applies only to **a field that is not due to become** his **ancestral field,** thereby **excluding this** field, **which** at the time of consecration **is due to become** his **ancestral field** in the future, when his father dies.


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

שְׂדֵה מִקְנָה אֵינָהּ יוֹצְאָה לַכֹּהֲנִים בַּיּוֹבֵל, שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מַקְדִּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ. הַכֹּהֲנִים וְהַלְוִיִּם מַקְדִּישִׁין לְעוֹלָם, וְגוֹאֲלִין לְעוֹלָם, בֵּין לִפְנֵי הַיּוֹבֵל בֵּין לְאַחַר הַיּוֹבֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: **A purchased field** that was consecrated **is not removed** from the possession of the Temple treasury and given **to the priests during the Jubilee** Year, **as** the purchase of the land was valid only until the Jubilee, at which point fields return to their ancestral owners, and **a person cannot consecrate an item that is not his. The priests and the Levites may always consecrate** their ancestral fields **and may always redeem** their ancestral fields, **both before the Jubilee** Year **and after the Jubilee** Year.


###### Arakhin 26b:17
[Arakhin 26b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/26b:17)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִנַּיִן לְלוֹקֵחַ שָׂדֶה מֵאָבִיו וְהִקְדִּישָׁהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת אָבִיו, מִנַּיִן שֶׁתְּהֵא לְפָנָיו כִּשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאִם מִשְּׂדֵה מִקְנָתוֹ אֲשֶׁר לֹא מִשְּׂדֵה אֲחֻזָּתוֹ״ — שָׂדֶה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לִהְיוֹת שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה, יָצְתָה זוֹ, שֶׁרְאוּיָה לִהְיוֹת שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **From where** is it derived that **one who purchases** an ancestral **field from his father and consecrated it, and afterward his father died, from where** is it derived **that it shall be** treated **for him like an ancestral field? The verse states: “And if** he will consecrate unto the Lord **a field that he has bought, which is not of his ancestral field”** (Leviticus 27:22), indicating that this *halakha* applies only to **a field that is not due to become** his **ancestral field,** thereby **excluding this** field that he purchased from his father, **which** at the time of consecration **is due to become** his **ancestral field;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon.**


###### Arakhin 26b:18
[Arakhin 26b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/26b:18)

רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן לְלוֹקֵחַ שָׂדֶה מֵאָבִיו, וּמֵת אָבִיו וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְדִּישָׁהּ, מִנַּיִן שֶׁתְּהֵא לְפָנָיו כִּשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאִם מִשְּׂדֵה מִקְנָתוֹ אֲשֶׁר לֹא מִשְּׂדֵה אֲחֻזָּתוֹ״ — שָׂדֶה שֶׁאֵינָהּ שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה, יָצָאת זוֹ שֶׁהִיא שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Meir says: From where** is it derived with regard to **one who purchases** an ancestral **field from his father, and his father died and afterward he consecrated** the field, **from where** is it derived **that it shall be** treated **for him like an ancestral field? The verse states: “And if** he will consecrate unto the Lord **a field that he has bought, which is not of his ancestral field.”** This teaches that **a field that is not an ancestral field** at the time of consecration is deemed a purchased field, thereby **excluding this** field, **which is** at this point **an ancestral field.** But according to Rabbi Meir, a field that at the time of consecration is merely due to become an ancestral field in the future is deemed a purchased field.


###### Arakhin 26b:19
[Arakhin 26b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/26b:19)

לֵימָא בְּהָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: קִנְיַן פֵּירוֹת כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that **they disagree about this: That Rabbi Meir,** who requires a derivation from the verse to teach the *halakha* that if the son consecrates the field after his father’s death it is not treated as a purchased field, **holds** that **acquisition** of an item for **its produce is tantamount** to **acquisition of the item itself.** Accordingly, as the son owned the plot as a purchased field prior to his father’s death, his ownership remained unchanged when his father died. Therefore, the verse is required to teach that upon the father’s death the field’s status changes to that of an ancestral field.


###### Arakhin 26b:20
[Arakhin 26b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/26b:20)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבְרִי: קִנְיַן פֵּירוֹת לָאו כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In contrast, let us say that **Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon hold** that **acquisition** of an item for **its produce is not tantamount** to **acquisition of the item itself.** Accordingly, his ownership of the field became absolute only upon his father’s death. Consequently, there is no need for a derivation from the verse for such a case, and the derivation is therefore applied to the case where the son consecrated the field before his father’s death.


###### Arakhin 26b:21
[Arakhin 26b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/26b:21)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: בְּעָלְמָא לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קִנְיַן פֵּירוֹת כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף דָּמֵי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: In general, according to Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda, acquisition** of an item for **its produce is tantamount** to **acquisition of the item itself.** Consequently, they also require the derivation from the verse to teach that if the father died before the son consecrated the field, it is treated as an ancestral field and not as a purchased field.