THE REASONING OF THE TANA'IM
Question: Why doesn't R. Yehudah learn from Shalmei Tzibur?
Answer: It is better to learn Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis from Bedek ha'Bayis, and not from Kodshei Mizbe'ach.
Question: Why doesn't R. Shimon learn from a Kodesh house?
Answer: It is better to learn a gift to Kohanim (the field) from a gift to Kohanim (Shalmei Tzibur). A house is not a gift to Kohanim.
(Mishnah - R. Elazar): Kohanim neither receive it nor pay...
Question: What is R. Elazar's reason?
Answer #1 (Rabah): He expounds "v'Im Lo Yig'al Es ha'Sadeh... Lo Yiga'el Od," "v'Im Machar Es ha'Sadeh... v'Hayah ha'Sadeh b'Tzeiso va'Yovel."
Objection (Abaye): It is unreasonable to cut up the verse like this! ("V'Im Machar Es ha'Sadeh" is in the middle of the verse, between "v'Im Lo Yig'al" and "Lo Yiga'el Od"!)
Answer #2 (Abaye): He learns like the following:
(Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps "Lo Yiga'el" teaches that it cannot be redeemed at all, even like a Sedeh Miknah!
Rejection: It cannot be redeemed "Od" like it used to be (a Sedeh Achuzah), but it can be redeemed like a Sedeh Miknah.
Question: When does this apply?
Answer #1: It applies during the first Yovel.
Rejection: If so, it can be redeemed to be a Sedeh Achuzah again! (Rashi - this is if no one redeemed it yet. Rambam - it is even if someone else redeemed it.)
Answer #2: It applies during the second Yovel.
Question: Who is the Tana of the Beraisa?
Answer #1: It is R. Yehudah or R. Shimon.
Rejection: They say that an unredeemed field is given to Kohanim after the first Yovel!
Answer #2: It is R. Elazar. This shows that he learns from "Lo Yiga'el Od."
Rejection: It is unreasonable to explain this way. If so, how do R. Yehudah and R. Shimon expound "Od"?!
Rather, the Beraisa refers to a field that a Kohen received it in Yovel, he was Makdish it, and the original owner wants to redeem it;
One might have thought that he cannot redeem it, even to be like a Sedeh Miknah. The verse teaches that he cannot redeem it to be his Achuzah again, but he can redeem it like a Sedeh Miknah.
Support (Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps "bi'Shnas ha'Yovel Yashuv ha'Sadeh la'Asher Kanahu me'Ito" teaches that (if Reuven bought Shimon's field and was Makdish it, and Levi redeemed it, then in Yovel) it goes back to the Gizbar (Hekdesh), from whom Levi bought it!
Rejection: It says "la'Asher Lo Achuzas ha'Aretz." (It returns to Shimon). (We call this Case 1.)
Question: Why do we need "la'Asher Kanahu me'Ito"?
Answer: If Reuven bought a field from a Kohen who received it (in Yovel) and Reuven was Makdish it and Levi redeemed it, one might have thought it returns to the original owner in the next Yovel;
"La'Asher Kanahu me'Ito" teaches that rather, it returns to the Kohen (for it is now his Achuzah). (We call this Case 2.)
The Torah needed to write "Lo Yiga'el" and "la'Asher Kanahu me'Ito";
Had it written only "Lo Yiga'el," one might have thought that in Case 1 it does not return to the original owner, for it does not return at all, but in Case 2, when it does return, it returns to the original owner;
"La'Asher Kanahu me'Ito" teaches that it returns to the Kohen.
Had it written only "la'Asher Kanahu me'Ito," one might have thought that in Case 2 it does not return to the original owner, for he did not pay anything, but in Case 1, when he pays to redeem it, it becomes his Achuzah again;
"Lo Yiga'el" teaches that it does not return to him.
Had it written only "Lo Yiga'el" and not "Od," one might have thought that he cannot redeem it at all. "Od" teaches that he cannot redeem it to be his Achuzah, but he can redeem it to be like a Sedeh Miknah.
Question: We still do not have a (satisfactory) answer for Question (f)! (What is R. Elazar's source?)
Answer #3 (Rava): "V'Hayah ha'Sadeh b'Tzeiso va'Yovel" refers to when it leaves someone else (who redeemed it. Then it is given to Kohanim, but not if it is still Hekdesh).
THE SECOND YOVEL
Question: (According to R. Elazar, if the original owner redeemed his field) during Yovel Sheni is he like anyone else? (Does it revert to be his Achuzah?)
Answer #1 (Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps "Lo Yiga'el" teaches that it cannot be redeemed at all, even like a Sedeh Miknah!
Rejection: "Od" teaches that it cannot be redeemed like it used to be, but it can be redeemed like a Sedeh Miknah.
Question: When does this apply?
Answer #1: It applies during the first Yovel.
Rejection: If so, it can be redeemed to be a Sedeh Achuzah again!
Answer #2: It applies during the second Yovel.
Question: Who is the Tana?
Answer #1: It is R. Yehudah or R. Shimon.
Rejection: They say that an unredeemed field is given to Kohanim after the first Yovel!
Answer #2: It is R. Elazar. This shows that the original owner like anyone else in Yovel Sheni.
Rejection: If so, how do R. Yehudah and R. Shimon expound "Od"?!
Answer #3 (to Question 2): (Really, it is like R. Yehudah and R. Shimon.) The Beraisa refers to a field that a Kohen received it in Yovel, he was Makdish it, and the original owner wants to redeem it;
One might have thought that he cannot redeem it, even to be like a Sedeh Miknah. The verse teaches that he cannot redeem it to be his Achuzah again, but he can redeem it like a Sedeh Miknah.
(Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps "bi'Shnas ha'Yovel Yashuv ha'Sadeh la'Asher Kanahu me'Ito" teaches that (in Case 1 above) in Yovel it goes back to the Gizbar, from whom Levi bought it!
Rejection: It goes "la'Asher Lo Achuzas ha'Aretz."
Question: Why do we need "la'Asher Kanahu me'Ito"?
Answer: If Reuven bought a field from a Kohen (who received it), was Makdish it and Levi redeemed it, one might have thought it returns to the original owner in the next Yovel;
"La'Asher Kanahu me'Ito" teaches that it returns to the Kohen.
The Torah needed to write "Lo Yiga'el" and "la'Asher Kanahu me'Ito":
Had it written only "Lo Yiga'el," one might have thought that in Case 1 it does not return to the original owner, for it does not return at all, but in Case 2, when it does return, it returns to the original owner;
"La'Asher Kanahu me'Ito" teaches that rather, it returns to the Kohen.
Had it written only "la'Asher Kanahu me'Ito," one might have thought that in Case 2 it does not return to the original owner, for he did not pay anything, but in Case 1, when he pays to redeem it, it becomes his Achuzah again;
"Lo Yiga'el" teaches that it does not return to him.
Had it written only "Lo Yiga'el" and not "Od," one might have thought that he cannot redeem it at all. "Od" teaches that he cannot redeem it to be his Achuzah, but he can redeem it to be like a Sedeh Miknah.
Question: We still do not have an answer for Question (a)! (Is the original owner like anyone else during Yovel Sheni?)
Version #1 - Answer #2 (Beraisa - R. Elazar): If the original owner redeemed it during Yovel Sheni, it is given to Kohanim in (the coming) Yovel.
Question (Ravina - Mishnah - R. Elazar): It is not given to Kohanim until an Acher (someone else) redeems it.
Answer (Rav Ashi): In Yovel Sheni, the original owner is like (and therefore called) an Acher.
Version #2 - Answer #2 (Beraisa - R. Elazar): If the original redeemed it during Yovel Sheni, it is not given to Kohanim in Yovel.
Support (Ravina - Mishnah - R. Elazar): It is not given to Kohanim until an Acher redeems it.
Rejection (Rav Ashi): That is no support. In Yovel Sheni, perhaps the original owner is like an Acher.
ONE WHO INHERITS THE FIELD HE BOUGHT
(Mishnah - R. Meir): If Reuven bought a field from his father Yakov, and was Makdish it after Yakov died, it is considered a Sedeh Achuzah;
If he was Makdish it before Yakov died, it is considered a Sedeh Miknah;
R. Yehudah and R. Shimon say, also this is a Sedeh Achuzah;
Regarding Sedeh Miknah, it says "Asher Lo mi'Sedeh Achuzaso", i.e. a field that could not have become his Achuzah. This field could have become his Achuzah. (Had he not bought it, he would have inherited it.)
(If one was Makdish) a Sedeh Miknah, it is not given to Kohanim in Yovel, for one (the buyer) cannot be Makdish something that he does not own (with permanent rights to the field).
Kohanim and Leviyim can be Makdish and redeem at any time, before or after Yovel.
(Gemara - Beraisa - R. Yehudah and R. Shimon) Question: If Reuven bought a field from his father Yakov, and was Makdish it; and Yakov died, what is the source that it is considered a Sedeh Achuzah?
Answer: "Asher Lo mi'Sedeh Achuzaso" is a field that was not proper to be an Achuzah.
R. Meir says, if Reuven bought a field from his father Yakov, and Yakov died, and then Reuven was Makdish it, it is considered a Sedeh Achuzah;
"Asher Lo mi'Sedeh Achuzaso" is a field that was not inherited when he was Makdish it, but he inherited (the right to permanently keep) this field. (end of Beraisa)
Question: What do they argue about?
Answer #1: They argue about whether Kinyan Peros (temporary ownership, i.e. the rights to the produce) is like Kinyan ha'Guf (permanent ownership);
R. Meir holds that Kinyan Peros is like Kinyan ha'Guf (therefore, it is as if he did not inherit anything). R. Yehoshua and R. Shimon hold that Kinyan Peros is not like Kinyan ha'Guf. (Therefore, it is as if he inherited the field.)