Arakhin 50

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Our Rabbis taught: And if he will not redeem the field,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 20.');">¹</span>

(ויקרא כז, כ) אם לא יגאל את השדה בעלים

i.e., the owner.

(ויקרא כז, כ) ואם מכר את השדה גיזבר

Or if he have sold the field,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 20.');">¹</span>

(ויקרא כז, כ) לאיש אחר לאחר ולא לבן

i.e., the treasurer [of the Sanctuary].

אתה אומר

To another man,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 20.');">¹</span>

לאחר ולא לבן

I.

או אינו אלא לאחר ולא לאח

e. , to another man but not to his son.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the son redeems it, the field reverts to his father at Jubilee.');">²</span>

כשהוא אומר

You say, 'to another man' [means] not to his son! But perhaps, 'to another man' [means] not to his brother?

איש הרי אח אמור הא מה אני מקיים אחר ולא לבן

Since Scripture says, 'man', the brother is included, hence how explain [the word] 'other', [it means to] exclude the son.

ומה ראית לרבות את הבן ולהוציא את האח

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',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 9. The designation i.e., betrothal of a Hebrew handmaid to her master. There the son automatically enters into his father's rights.');">³</span>

מרבה אני הבן שכן קם תחת אביו ליעידה ולעבד עברי

and in regard to a Hebrew slave.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of a Hebrew slave, whose master dies, the son is entitled to the remaining ones of the six years' service due to his father.');">⁴</span>

אדרבה מרבה אני את האח שכן קם תחת אחיו לייבום

On the contrary! I would include the brother because he arises in his brother's place in regard to the levirate duty?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 5 If brethren dwell together and one of them die and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not be married abroad unto one not of his kin. Her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife.');">⁵</span>

כלום יש יבום אלא במקום שאין בן הא יש בן אין יבום

[This is no argument.] For is there any levirate duty in any condition but where there be no son?

ותיפוק ליה דהכא תרתי והכא חדא

Surely if there is a son, no levirate duty is involved.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Any child, son or daughter, of the dead brother renders the levirate duty impossible, and indeed prohibits it as incestuous. Hence the brother plays a role only when there is no son.');">⁶</span>

משום דעבד עברי מהאי פירכא נמי הוא דנפקא ליה

But infer it from the fact that here [in the son's case] there are two points [in 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The preference for a son in the case of a Hebrew slave is not based on the Biblical text, but is inferred from this very 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.');">⁷</span>

כלום יש יבום אלא במקום שאין בן

Rabbah B'Abbuha asked: Could a daughter preserve a field for her father?

בעי רבה בר אבוה

[Shall I say,] Since with regard to the levirate obligation, both son and daughter alike effect exemption,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Just as in the case of her father's death, the daughter like the son, cancels the possibility of the levirate obligation, so 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.');">⁸</span>

בת מהו שתעמיד שדה לאביה

she therefore can preserve [the field], or perhaps, since in respect of inheritance the daughter, where there is a son, is considered an outsider,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'another' since she cannot inherit.');">⁹</span>

כיון דלענין יבום בן ובת כי הדדי פטרי מוקמה או דילמא כיון דלענין נחלה בת במקום בן כי אחר דמיא לא מוקמה

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.

ת"ש דתנא דבי ר' ישמעאל

R'Zeirah asked: Who can preserve the field for a woman?

כל שהוא אחר במקום בן והא נמי במקום בן כי אחר דמיא

[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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The son inherits from his mother property which will be due after her death, as well as such already in her possession, whereas the husband does not obtain those still due, as he does those in her possession already. V. B.B. 113a.');">¹⁰</span>

בעי ר' זירא

- The question remains unanswered.

אשה מי מעמיד לה שדה

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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If another man redeems as is required, not at a deduction but with the payment of the full fifty shekels.');">¹¹</span>

בעל מוקים לה שכן יורשה א"ד בן מוקים לה שכן נוטל בראוי כבמוחזק

He replied: What do you think?

תיקו

Because: 'An abatement shall be made from thy valuation.

בעא מיניה רמי בר חמא מרב חסדא

but the field when it goeth out in the Jubilee'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 18 and 21.');">¹²</span>

הקדישה פחות משתי שנים לפני היובל מהו שתצא לכהנים

[from which you would infer] that [the law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the field on Jubilee goes out to the priests.');">¹³</span>

א"ל

applies] only to [a field] subject to the law of deduction, but not to one which is not subject to the la of deduction?

מאי דעתיך

On the contrary! [Scripture says:] And if he will not redeem the field.

(ויקרא כז, יח) ונגרע מערכך והיה השדה בצאתו ביובל דבת גירעון אין דלאו בת גירעון לא

the field, when it goeth out in the Jubilee, etc. ,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 20, 21.');">¹⁴</span>

אדרבה אם לא יגאל השדה והיה השדה בצאתו ביובל והאי נמי בת גאולה היא:

and this field too is subject to redemption.

גאלה אחד מן הכהנים כו':

IF ONE OF THE PRIESTS REDEEMED IT.

תנו רבנן

Our Rabbis taught: The possession thereof shall be the priest's,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 21. Unless he redeems it, the field will go out to the priests.');">¹⁵</span>

(ויקרא כז, כא) לכהן תהיה אחוזתו מה ת"ל

what does that come to teach?

מנין לשדה שיוצא לכהנים ביובל וגאלה אחד מן הכהנים מנין שלא יאמר

[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';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'His' is here interpreted as suggesting only that the priest's own field of possession, i.e., that inherited from his father, may belong exclusively to him, but not someone else's field of possession.');">¹⁶</span>

הואיל ויוצאה לכהן הרי תחת ידי ותהא שלי

a possession which is his, but this one is not his.

ודין הוא בשל אחרים אני זוכה בשל עצמי לא כ"ש

How then [do we deal with such a field]?

ת"ל

It goes out of his hand and is distributed among his brethren the priests.

אחוזתו אחוזה שלו ואין זה שלו הא כיצד

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF THE YEAR OF JUBILEE ARRIVED AND IT WAS NOT YET REDEEMED THEN THE PRIESTS ENTER INTO POSSESSION THEREOF AND PAY ITS VALUE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Fifty shekels for each piece of the field sufficient for the sowing of a homer of barley, payable to the treasurer of the Sanctuary; thereupon the field becomes their field of possession.');">¹⁷</span>

יוצא מתחת ידו ומתחלקת לאחיו הכהנים:

THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R'JUDAH.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הגיע יובל ולא נגאלה הכהנים נכנסין לתוכה ונותנין את דמיה דברי ר' יהודה

R'SIMEON SAYS: THEY ENTER [INTO POSSESSION] BUT THEY DO NOT PAY [ITS VALUE].

ר"ש אומר

R'ELIEZER SAYS: THEY NEITHER ENTER [INTO POSSESSION] NOR PAY [ITS VALUE].

נכנסין ולא נותנין

BUT IT IS CALLED AN ABANDONED FIELD UNTIL THE SECOND JUBILEE.

ר"א אומר

IF THE SECOND JUBILEE HAS ARRIVED AND IT WAS NOT YET REDEEMED, IT IS CALLED A 'TWICE ABANDONED FIELD'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This designation serves at the same time as a notice to the would-be buyers, who for practical or sentimental reasons might redeem the field for its original owner.');">¹⁸</span>

לא נכנסין ולא נותנין אלא נקראת שדה רטושין עד היובל השני

UNTIL THE THIRD JUBILEE.

הגיע היובל השני ולא נגאלה נקראת רטושי רטושין עד היובל השלישי

THE PRIESTS NEVER ENTER INTO POSSESSION THEREOF UNTIL SOMEONE ELSE HAD REDEEMED IT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the next Jubilee arrives, the priests enter into possession of the field without the obligation of paying its value to the Sanctuary, for the latter has already received such value from the person who redeemed the field.');">¹⁹</span>

לעולם אין הכהנים נכנסין לתוכה עד שיגאלנה אחר:

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>What is the reason of R'Judah's view? - He derives it from [the analogous]: 'holy', 'holy' [written] with the consecration of a house.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 14 uses the term in referring' to the consecration of a house, and v. 23 to that of a field of possession.');">²⁰</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מ"ט דרבי יהודה

Just as there [a redemption is impossible without] payment of money, so here also payment of money [is mandatory].

גמר קודש קודש ממקדיש בית מה להלן בדמים אף כאן בדמים

And R'Simeon? - He derives it from [the analogous]: 'holy', 'holy' [written] with the lambs of the Feast of Weeks.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev, XXIII, 20.');">²¹</span>

ור"ש

Just as there [the priest obtains them] without money, so here, too, without money.

גמר קודש קודש מכבשי עצרת מה להלן בחנם אף כאן בחנם

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

ורבי [יהודה] נמי ניליף מכבשי עצרת

דנין קדשי בדק הבית