both they and their empty lots. The Gemara objects: But they and their lots stand to be dismantled, as a city of the Levites may not be surrounded by a wall. How, then, can such a city be considered surrounded by a wall? Rav Ashi said: Nevertheless, it was necessary for the baraita to teach that if a Levite sells a house in such a city he may always redeem it, as it might enter your mind to say: When the walls are dismantled, then they are dismantled, but as long as they remain standing, if houses in the city are sold and are not redeemed within one year, let them belong to the buyer in perpetuity, in accordance with the halakha of houses of walled cities. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that this is not the case.

§ The Sages taught: The verse states, with regard to one who consecrated his ancestral field but failed to redeem it before the Jubilee Year: ''But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy unto the Lord, as a field dedicated; his ancestral field shall be for the priest'' (Leviticus 27:21). What is the meaning when the verse states: ''As a field dedicated''? The baraita explains: From where is it derived with regard to a priest who consecrated his dedicated field, i.e., a field that was dedicated to the priests by an Israelite, and the Jubilee Year arrived, that he may not say: Since a field that was consecrated by its owners and was not redeemed leaves to the possession of the priests in the Jubilee Year, and this field that I consecrated is already in my possession, it is therefore mine.

The baraita continues: And this is the halakha despite the fact that the claim of the priest is based on logical inference: If I acquire the fields of others that were consecrated and not redeemed before the Jubilee Year, then with regard to my own property, should I not all the more so acquire it? Therefore, the verse states: ''As a field dedicated, his ancestral field shall be for the priest,'' which teaches that this is not the case.

The baraita elaborates: But what have we learned about a consecrated ancestral field from a dedicated field from now? The Torah does not explicitly state the halakha with regard to dedicated fields. Rather, this case of a dedicated field came to teach a halakha with regard to an ancestral field, and it turns out that in addition it derives a halakha from that case, i.e., the verse juxtaposes the dedicated field of a priest to the ancestral field of an Israelite: Just as the ancestral field of an Israelite that was redeemed by a priest from the Temple treasury leaves from his possession at the arrival of the Jubilee Year and is divided among all the priests (see 25a), so too, the dedicated field of a priest that he consecrated leaves from his possession and is divided among his brothers, the priests, at the beginning of the Jubilee Year.

The Gemara analyzes this baraita: The Master said: And this claim of the priest is based on logical inference: If I acquire the fields of others that were consecrated, then with regard to my own property, should I not acquire it all the more so? The Gemara asks: Are these cases comparable? There, with regard to an ancestral field that was consecrated and leaves to the possession of the priests, he merely acquires it as one of the priests, whereas here, with regard to a dedicated field that he consecrated, he seeks to take the entire field for himself. If so, there is no need for the verse to teach that the priest may not do so.

Rami bar Ḥama said: Nevertheless, the verse was necessary, as it might enter your mind to say that since it is written: ''And every man’s hallowed things shall be his'' (Numbers 5:10), from which it is derived that a priest who brings an offering may sacrifice it and take for himself those portions intended for the priests and he is not required to give them to the members of the current priestly watch, perhaps this too, i.e., his dedicated field that he consecrated, is considered like his hallowed things, and he may take it for himself. Therefore, the verse serves to indicate that this is not the case.

The Gemara asks: Are these cases comparable? His hallowed things, i.e., offerings brought by the priest, are not in his possession; rather, the priest receives the priestly portions from the table of the Most High, in exchange for performing the sacrificial rites. Here, the priest seeks to return the field to his possession.

Rather, Rav Naḥman said: The verse was necessary, as it might enter your mind to say that since it is written with regard to the fields of Levites and priests: ''For that is their perpetual possession'' (Leviticus 25:34), from which it is derived that if a priest consecrated his ancestral field he may always redeem it, so too this dedicated field received by the priest is also considered his ancestral field, and if he consecrated it he may always redeem it. The juxtaposition of the dedicated field of a priest to the ancestral field of an Israelite teaches us that this is not the halakha, as the verse states: ''His ancestral field shall be for the priest'' (Leviticus 27:31). The verse teaches that with regard to the ancestral field of a priest that he inherited from his father, yes, it remains in the possession of that priest in perpetuity, but with regard to his dedicated field, it does not remain in his possession in perpetuity; rather, it is divided among the members of the priestly watch serving at the beginning of the Jubilee Year.

We will return to you, ''One who sold his field''...