Arakhin 51

Chapter 51

א מקדשי בדק הבית ואין דנין קדשי בדק הבית מקדשי מזבח
1 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.
ב ורבי שמעון נמי נילף ממקדיש בית דנין דבר שמתנה לכהנים מדבר שמתנה לכהנים ואין דנין דבר שמתנה לכהנים מדבר שאינו מתנה לכהנים:
2 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The field of possession as well as the lambs of the Feast of Weeks both are a gift to the priest (v. Lev. XXIII, 20 and XXVII, 21) ; that is not the case with the consecration of a house, the value of which goes to the fund for Temple repairs.');"><sup>1</sup></span> R'ELIEZER SAYS: THEY NEITHER ENTER [INTO POSSESSION] NOR PAY [ITS VALUE].
ג רבי אליעזר אומר לא נכנסין ולא נותנין [וכו']:
3 Rabbah said: What is the reason for R'Eliezer's view? Scripture said: And if he will not redeem the field.
ד אמר רבה מ"ט דר"א אמר קרא (ויקרא כז, כ) ואם לא יגאל את השדה לא יגאל עוד ואם מכר את השדה והיה השדה בצאתו ביובל
4 it shall not redeemed any more. or if he have sold the field to another man [then]. the field, when it goeth out in the Jubilee.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XXVII, 20-21. The two verses are combined to mean thus: If he does not redeem it, it shall not be redeemed 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.');"><sup>2</sup></span> 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'.
ה אמר אביי סכינא חריפא מפסקא קראי אלא אמר אביי טעמא דרבי אליעזר כדתניא לא יגאל יכול לא תהא נגאלת שתהא לפניו כשדה מקנה ת"ל עוד לכמות שהיתה אינה נגאלת אבל נגאלת שתהא לפניו כשדה מקנה
5 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the owner can no longer redeem it to have the use of the field at least to the next Jubilee.');"><sup>3</sup></span> 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]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to be his permanently after the redemption.');"><sup>4</sup></span> but it can be redeemed to become to him like a field acquired by purchase.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This laborious combination of verses for a forced ad hoc elicits Abaye's merited reproach.');"><sup>5</sup></span> Now to when does this refer? Will you say, To the first Jubilee? Why can it not be redeemed?
ו אימת אילימא ביובל ראשון אמאי אינה נגאלת שדה אחוזה נמי הויא אלא פשיטא ביובל שני
6 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]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As stated in our MISHNAH:');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ז ולמאן אילימא לרבי יהודה ור"ש לכהנים נפקא אלא לאו ר' אליעזר ושמע מינה טעמא דר' אליעזר מהכא
7 You must hence say it is in accord with R'Eliezer, which proves that R'Eliezer infers his reason from here.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eliezer holds that after the first Jubilee year the field if unredeemed belongs to the Sanctuary and not the priests, and consequently the field can still be redeemed, hence the exposition of the cited verse.');"><sup>7</sup></span> But is that how you think? How then do R'Judah and R'Simeon interpret that 'any more'.
ח ותסברא רבי יהודה ור"ש האי עוד מאי דרשי ביה אלא הכא במאי עסקינן בשדה שיצאה לכהנים והקדישה כהן ואתו בעלים למיפרקה
8 Rather we speak here of a field [of possession] that went out to the priests [at Jubilee],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it had been redeemed by another man.');"><sup>8</sup></span> and which the priests thereupon consecrated,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who received it on Jubilee.');"><sup>9</sup></span> and now the [original] owner comes to redeem it.
ט ס"ד אמינא לא תיפרוק שתהא לפניו כשדה מקנה ת"ל עוד לכמות שהיתה אינה נגאלת אבל נגאלת שתהא לפניו כשדה מקנה
9 You might have assumed that it cannot be redeemed [by the owner]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he did not redeem it on the first Jubilee year.');"><sup>10</sup></span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 24 with reference to a field of purchase.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
י והתניא (ויקרא כז, כד) בשנת היובל ישוב השדה לאשר קנהו מאתו יכול יחזור לגזבר שלקחו ממנו תלמוד לומר (ויקרא כז, כד) לאשר לו אחוזת הארץ
10 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 24 with reference to a field of purchase.');"><sup>11</sup></span> 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'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One might have assumed that it reverts to the man who originally consecrated it, therefore the Scriptural 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.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
יא יאמר לאשר לו אחוזת הארץ מה תלמוד לומר לאשר קנהו מאתו שדה שיצאת לכהנים ומכרה כהן והקדישה לוקח וגאלה אחר יכול תחזור לבעלים הראשונים ת"ל לאשר קנהו
11 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],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when the priest consecrated it after having received it on Jubilee, the owner having failed to redeem it. In this 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.');"><sup>13</sup></span> but here where it reverts [to the one who consecrated it],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where the priest sold and the purchaser consecrated it, in which case it is a field acquired by purchase, which if someone redeems it from the Sanctuary does not go out to the priests on Jubilee, but reverts to the consecrator.');"><sup>14</sup></span> [I might have said,] it shall revert to the owner; therefore the Divine Law wrote: 'Unto him of whom it was bought'.
יב ואיצטריך לא יגאל ואיצטריכא למיכתב לאשר קנהו
12 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since another redeemed it.');"><sup>15</sup></span> 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'.
יג דאי כתב רחמנא לא יגאל דלא קא הדרה כלל אבל הכא דקא הדרה תיהדר למרה קמא כתב רחמנא לאשר קנהו
13 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We do not yet know the reason for R. Eliezer's view that the priests cannot enter into possession until someone has redeemed it.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
יד ואי כתב רחמנא לאשר קנהו דלא קא יהבי בעלים דמי אבל הכא דקא יהבי דמי תיקום בידייהו כתב רחמנא לא יגאל
14 - 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when it goes out of the possession of another who had redeemed it from the treasurer before the year of Jubilee, then shall it go out to the priests as their field of possession.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
טו ואי כתב רחמנא לא יגאל ולא כתב עוד הוה אמינא לא תיפרוק כלל כתב רחמנא עוד לכמות שהיתה אינה נגאלת אבל נגאלת שתהא לפניו כשדה מקנה
15 
טז מאי הוי עלה אמר רבא אמר קרא והיה השדה בצאתו ביובל בצאתו מיד אחר
16