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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.''

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.''

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.

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.